14-35427 Public Records Request Production

From
Lake James Perriguey
To
Rosenblum
Sent
7 25 2013 3 42 34
PM
Subject
Potential
challenge
to
Greetings
would
defining
Ellen
Or Const
defining
marriage
Ellen
like
to schedule
a call with you about a potential
federal challenge to
Oregon
s constitutional
provision
marriage
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
contain confidential
or privileged
information
the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
law works com and delete
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Rosenblum
Sent
8 12 2013 10 12 03
Subject
Potential
Ellen
challenge
AM
to
Or Const
defining
marriage
Greetings
we
Might
meet sometime
Lake James
in
the next
week
or
two
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
Begin forwarded
message
From Lake James Perriguey

Subject
Date
To
Potential
July 25
ellen
Greetings
would
defining
law works
lake
com
challenge to Or Const defining marriage
2013 3 42 34
rosenblum
PM PDT
doj state or
us
Ellen
like
to schedule
a call with you about a potential
federal challenge to
Oregon
s constitutional
provision
marriage
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Attorney
Sent
8 14 2013 11 20 49
Subject
Request
General
for
AM
Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum
Hello
would
anti
gay
like
to set up a meeting with Ellen Rosenblum to discuss a federal constitutional challenge of Oregon s
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Busey
To
Jennifer
lake
law works
com
Sent
8 15 2013 9 48 52
Subject
RE
Hello
We
met
recently
by phone
Williams
your request
have
the
AG and
requests
Thank
have
a good
will
helped
schedule
you a little
time with AG Rosenblum
and
well
and
are out
you and
of
will
the
be back
be in touch
office
today
as soon
and
as I
tomorrow
can
I
regarding
ll
review
availability
scheduling
in touch
day
Busey
Assistant
Rosenblum
378
when
is
on my list
Deputy
and
and
Scheduler
Attorney
for
General
6002
Perriguey
From
Lake
Sent
Wednesday
To
all
week
Executive
503
Hope
next
Jennifer
Ellen
for
Lake
Deputy
Both
AM
Lake Perriguey request
Attorney
Subject
mailto
August
14
lake
2013
law
works
com
11 21 AM
General
Request
for Meeting
with Ellen
Rosenblum
Hello
I
would
like
challenge
Lake
Law
of
to
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
227
1928
334
2340
skype
lagojaime
PLEASE DON
works
law
Guardian
to
discuss
a federal
constitutional
marriage
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
Rosenblum
of
Street
Oregon
www
This
with Ellen
gay definition
Perriguey
http
OTLA
s anti
LLC
Portland
T
set up a meeting
Oregon
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Perriguey request for Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my
have your request on

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
can regarding availa
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
Both the AG and Deputy are out of the
uch
Thank you and have a good day
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Request for Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
or privileged information
If
you are not the
please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
contain information that
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
copies and attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
you are not the addressee
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
ex empt from disclosure under
from the context or otherwise
immediately by reply e mail keep
and any attachments from your system
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
and immediately delete
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Busey
Sent
8 15 2013 9 50 23
Subject
Re Lake
Jennifer
AM
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
oce
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Bader Chrystal
To
lake
law works
com
Sent
8 21 2013 12 22 54
Subject
FW
PM
for
Meeting
with Ellen
Rosenblum
Hi Lake
can help with ge ing you a meeting with

next
availability
week
Thursday
Please
let
Mary
Po er Deputy
Also aending will be Sheila
September 5
me know
if
10 00
this date
AM
12 00 noon
works
for
Deputy
Williams
you
If
2 00
not
we
Aorney G
Chief Trial Couns
4 00
Aairs
Oce
Legislative
of the
1162 Court Street
can look out
further
Coordinator
A orney General
NE Salem OR
97301
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Thursday
mailto lake
August 15
law works
com
2013 9 50 AM
Busey Jennifer
Subject
Re
Lake
Perriguey request
for
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
Hello
15 2013
Lake
at
9 48
AM
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
el
PM
Chrystal Bader
Public
eneral
doj state or us
wrote
Thanks
Below
is
her
We
I
met
by phone when
recently
have your request on my

today and tomorrow
office
and
list
I
helped schedule
be
will
review
ll
in
you a
little
touch as soon as
scheduling
AG Rosenblumand
time with
can regarding
requests next week and
will
Both the
availability
be
Deputy Williams
back in
AG
Hope
all
is
and Deputy are out
well
of
the
touch
Busey
Jennifer
Executive
and Scheduler
Assistant
Rosenblum
Ellen
Attorney
for
General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
August 14
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Bader Chrystal
Sent
8 21 2013 12 30 27
Subject
Re Lake
M
PM
Hi Chrystal
Your email
indicates that
Can we do
a google hangout
Lake James
it
is
next
week
schedule
but then the date identifies
do not expect them to drive to
my
day
that
is
two weeks away
office
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
you are not the
If
ntended recipient
lake
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On Aug
21 2013
at
12 22
PM
Bader Chrystal
Chrystal
m bader
doj state or us
wrote
Hi Lake
availability
next
Thursday
Please
let
week
Mary
September 5
me know
if
10 00
this date
AM
works
Po er Deputy
12 00 noon
for
Deputy
Williams
you
If
2 00
not
we
Chief Trial Couns
4 00
Aairs
Oce
1162 Court
Legislative
can look out
of the
503 378 6002
image001
From
Sent
Lake
Perriguey
Thursday
mailto lake
August 15
law works
2013 9 50 AM
com
Coordinator
A orney General
Street NE Salem OR
jpg
eneral
el
PM
Chrystal Bader
Public
Aorney G
97301
further
Thanks
Below
is
her
To
Busey Jennifer
Subject
Re
request for Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum
Lake Perriguey
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my

and tomorrow
today
ll
list
9 48
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
oce
uch
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
Rosenblum
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
August 14
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the
lake
ntended
recipient
law works com and
delete
this e mail
and
all
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Bader Chrystal
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
8 21 2013 1 03 43
Subject
RE
Oops
Ave
sorry
It
410
Ste
PM
for
September 5th when they are both
is
Are you able to come
there
and
available
at our Portland
oce
1515
SW
Fifth
Thanks
Chrystal Bader
Public
Aairs
Oce
Legislative
Coordinator
A orney General
Street NE Salem OR
of the
1162 Court
97301
503 378 6002
Description
OregonStateSeal
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
Bader Chrystal
Subject
Re
law works
mailto lake
com
2013 12 30 PM
August 21
Lake
Perriguey request
for
Hi Chrystal
Your email
indicates that
Can we do
a google hangout
Lake James
it
is
next
week
schedule
my
day
that
is
two weeks away
office
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the
lake
ntended
recipient
law works com and
delete
this e mail
On Aug
and
all
21 2013
at
12 22
PM
Bader Chrystal
Chrystal
m bader
doj state or us
wrote
Hi Lake
week
next
availability
Thursday
Please
me know
if
10 00
this date
AM
12 00 noon
works
for
Deputy
Williams
Po er Deputy
September 5
let
Mary
you
If
2 00
not
Chief Trial Couns
4 00
we
Aorney G
eneral
Below
her
is
el
PM
can look out
further
Thanks
Chrystal Bader
Public
Aairs
Oce
1162 Court
Legislative
Coordinator
A orney General
Street NE Salem OR
of the
97301
503 378 6002
image001 jpg
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Thursday
law works
mailto lake
com
2013 9 50 AM
August 15
Busey Jennifer
Subject
Re
Lake Perriguey
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
Hello
We
I
15 2013
at
9 48
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
met
recently
by phone when
office
AM
today and tomorrow
and
list
I
ll
helped schedule
will
review
Jennifer
Busey
Executive
Assistant
and Scheduler
for
be
in
you a
little
touch as soon as
scheduling
time with
AG Rosenblumand
can regarding
will
availability
be
back in
Deputy Williams
Both the
touch
AG
Hope
all
is
and Deputy are out
well
of
the
Rosenblum
Ellen
Attorney
General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
August 14
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Bader Chrystal
Sent
8 21 2013 2 12 04
Subject
Re Lake
Lets plan on 10
am
on Sept 5
at
M
PM
the
down town
offices
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
Oops
Ave
21 2013
sorry
It
410
Ste
at
is
PM
1 03
Bader Chrystal
Chrystal
there
m bader
available
doj state or us
and
wrote
at our Portland
oce
1515
SW
Fifth
Thanks
Chrystal Bader
Public
Aairs
Oce
1162 Court
Legislative
Coordinator
A orney General
Street NE Salem OR
of the
97301
503 378 6002
image001
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
Bader Chrystal
Subject
Re
Lake
law works
mailto lake
August 21
jpg
com
2013 12 30 PM
M
Perriguey request
for
Hi Chrystal
Your email
indicates that
Can we do
a google hangout
Lake James
it
is
next
week
schedule
my
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT
CONSERVE RESOURCES
office
day
that
is
two weeks away
may
This e mail
contain
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
On Aug
and
ntended
recipient
law works com and
lake
delete
all
21 2013
at
12 22
PM
Bader Chrystal
Chrystal
m bader
doj state or us
wrote
Hi Lake
Mary

next
availability
week
Thursday
Please
let
September 5
me know
if
10 00
this date
AM
Po er Deputy
12 00 noon
works
for
Deputy
Williams
you
If
2 00
not
Chief Trial Couns
4 00
we
Aorney G
eneral
Below
is
her
el
PM
can look out
further
Thanks
Chrystal Bader
Public
Aairs
Oce
1162 Court
Legislative
Coordinator
A orney General
Street NE Salem OR
of the
97301
503 378 6002
image001
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Thursday
mailto lake
law works
jpg
com
2013 9 50 AM
August 15
Busey Jennifer
Subject
Re
Lake Perriguey
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
Portland
OR
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
9 48
met
recently
AM
by phone when
my
today
and tomorrow
ll
list
at
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
and
helped schedule
will
be
in
review scheduling
you a
li
touch as soon as
requests next
le
me
with
AG Rosenblum
week and
will
be back
in
bility
to
uch
nd Deputy Williams
Hope
all
is
well
oce
Busey
Jennifer
Execu ve Assistant
Ellen
and Scheduler
for
Aorney General
Rosenblum
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
August 14
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Bader Chrystal
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
8 21 2013 2 12 54
Subject
RE
Sounds good
PM
for
Thanks
Chrystal Bader
Public
Aairs
Oce
Legislative
of the
1162 Court Street
Coordinator
A orney General
NE Salem OR
97301
503 378 6002
Description
OregonStateSeal
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
Bader Chrystal
Subject
Re
Lake
Lets plan on 10
law works
mailto lake
August 21
com
2013 2 12 PM
M
Perriguey request
am
on Sept 5
at
for
the
down town
offices
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
Oops
Ave
21 2013
sorry
Ste
410
It
at
is
1 03
PM
Bader Chrystal
Chrystal
there
m bader
available
doj state or us
and
at our Portland
Thanks
Chrystal Bader
Public
Aairs
Oce
Legislative
of the
1162 Court Street
Coordinator
A orney General
NE Salem OR
503 378 6002
image001 jpg
wrote
97301
oce
1515
SW
Fifth
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
Bader Chrystal
Subject
Re
law works
mailto lake
com
2013 12 30 PM
August 21
Lake
Perriguey request
for
Hi Chrystal
Your email
indicates that
Can we do
a google hangout
Lake James
it
is
next
week
schedule
my
day
that
is
two weeks away
office
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
On Aug
and
ntended
recipient
law works com and
lake
delete
all
21 2013
at
12 22
PM
Bader Chrystal
Chrystal
m bader
doj state or us
wrote
Hi Lake
availability
next
Thursday
Please
let
week
Mary
September 5
me know
if
10 00
this date
AM
works
Po er Deputy
12 00 noon
for
Deputy
Williams
you
If
2 00
not
we
Chief Trial Couns
4 00
Aairs
Oce
1162 Court
Legislative
can look out
Coordinator
A orney General
Street NE Salem OR
of the
503 378 6002
image001 jpg
eneral
el
PM
Chrystal Bader
Public
Aorney G
97301
further
Thanks
Below
is
her
From
Lake
Sent
To
Perriguey
Thursday
law works
mailto lake
com
2013 9 50 AM
August 15
Busey Jennifer
Subject
Re
Lake Perriguey
Hi there
Thank you so much
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On Aug
at
9 48
AM
Busey Jennifer
jennifer
busey
doj state or us
wrote
Lake
Hello
We
15 2013
met
recently
by phone when

today and tomorrow
office
and
list
I
ll
helped schedule
be
will
review
in
you a
little
touch as soon as
scheduling
time with
AG Rosenblumand
can regarding
will
availability
be
back in
Deputy Williams
Both the
AG
Hope
all
and Deputy are out
touch
Busey
Jennifer
Executive
and Scheduler
Assistant
Rosenblum
Ellen
Attorney
for
General
503 378 6002
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Wednesday
mailto lake
August 14
law works
com
2013 11 21 AM
Attorney General
Subject
Hello
would
anti
like
gay
definition
Lake James
of marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT
CONSERVE RESOURCES
is
well
of
the
This e mail
may
contain
confidential
If
you are not the

this e mail
and
all
may
recipient
law works com and
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
ntended
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 7 2013 5 56 19
Subject
Meeting
Ms
Dear
It
was
Sheila
H
PM
Potter
nice to see you this past
week
will
look forward to hearing from your contacts
soon
Lake
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
9 9 2013 5 32 34
Subject
RE
It
was
bit
And
so nice
PM
Meeting
to
meet
you
so you will
hear
from him or them
please call
The
contacts
are Marc
if
Abrams
you haven
s friends
and
he says
he knows
you a
already
me Sheila
Sheila
From
Lake
Sent
Saturday
To
Perriguey
Potter
Sheila
Subject
Meeting
Dear
Potter
It
Ms
was
nice
mailto
lake
September 07
to
law
2013
works
com
5 56 PM
see you this past
week
will
look
forward
to
hearing
from your contacts
soon
Lake
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
97205
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 16 2013 8 00 48
Subject
request to confer
Sheila
H
AM
Sheila
Do
you have a few minutes to speak on the phone
this
morning or
this
afternoon
Lake
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
9 16 2013 8 38 27
Subject
Re
sure do
On
Sep
16
ll
give
2013
at
Sheila
AM
request to confer
you a call
8 00 AM
in just a bit
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
wrote
Sheila
Do
you have
a few minutes to
speak
on the
phone
this morning
or this afternoon
Lake
James H
Lake
Law
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
97205
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 17 2013 8 28 29
Subject
Litigation
Sheila
H
AM
Dear Sheila
The
first
paragraph of every motion in federal court must certify that the parties
which
the issues in the complaint
statutory framework
underlying
process and equal protection

the parties have conferred
If
so then
could
be those discussed
as clarified in Li limit
So
am
simultaneously
my
submit a stipulated
de a good
faith
The
effort
to resolve
constitution
Once
the case
is
filed
would
and the
like
to say that
plaintiffs
Judgment declaring Measure 6 unconstitutional
insofar as they prevent same

its
ma
prior discussions wi th you
writing to discuss a resolution
and enjoining the State and
Clause
in
marriage to same sex couples in violation of fundamental due
and the State agrees with the
marriage statutes as well

Protection
will
sex couple from marrying
instrumentalities
in
violation
M easure
from enforcing
and the
of the Equal
36 and the marriage
statutes
Could
it
be
this direct
the multnomah
Lake James
If
so then
could
get a stipulated
county clerk requiring him or her to issue a
judgment as above
with an additional
injunction
against
license
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
9 17 2013 9 13 57
Subject
RE
don
think
that
AM
Litigation
this approach
is
the
way
to
go
ll
give
you a call
in a bit
if
you have
time this morning

From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
Dear
The
Sheila
law
2013
8 28 AM
works
com
Litigation
first
paragraph
effort
discussions
limit
say that
so
to
of
with you
So
the
then
every
resolve
the
The
marriage to
protection
If
lake
Sheila
faith
Li
mailto
September 17
could
from marrying
to
simultaneously
and
the
in violation
of
it
be this direct
additional
injunction
If
so
against
of
the
State
Equal
Measure
then
as well
could
the
get
the
parties made
discussed
statutory framework
Once
the
due
case
with the
Judgment
Clause
and
is
a good
in my prior
as clarified
process
filed
and
I
clerk
would
like
Law
James H
Works
1906
declaring
Measure
prevent
enjoining
same
the
sex couple
State
and
its
judgment
as above
with an
requiring him or her to
issue
SW
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Portland
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
to
plaintiffs
license
Lake
in
equal
marriage statutes
a stipulated
multnomah county
that
be those
insofar as they
Protection
36 and
will
fundamental
agrees
submit a stipulated
the
the
underlying
a resolution
and
marriage statutes
instrumentalities from enforcing

Could
the
must certify
which
in violation
discuss
conferred
court
complaint
and
sex couples
am writing
unconstitutional
in the
constitution
same
parties have
I
motion in federal
issues
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 17 2013 9 15 24
Subject
Re
Sheila
H
AM
Litigation
Okay
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison St
OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 803 5184
On
Sep 17 2013
don
From
Sent
To
at
9 13
AM
Potter
think that this approach
Lake
Perriguey
Tuesday
Potter
Sheila
Subject
17
the
is
way
law works
mailto lake
September
Sheila
potter
sheila
to go
doj state or us
give you a
ll
call
wrote
you have time
in a bit
if
this
morning
com
2013 8 28 AM
Litigation
Dear Sheila
The
paragraph of every motion in federal court must certify that the parties
first
which
the issues in the complaint
statutory framework
underlying
If
so then
could
Clause
am
in
my
submit a stipulated
its
de a good
faith
The
effort
to resolve
constitution
and the
marriage to same sex couples in violation of fundamental due
Once
the case
is
filed
would
like
to say that
plaintiffs
Judgment declaring Measure 6 unconstitutional
insofar as they prevent same
and enjoining the State and
ma
prior discussions wi th you
writing to discuss a resolution
and the State agrees with the
simultaneously
marriage statutes as well

Protection
be those discussed
as clarified in Li limit
So

the parties have conferred
will
sex couple from marrying
instrumentalities
from enforcing
in
violation
M easure
and the
of the Equal
36 and the marriage
statutes
Could
be
it
this direct
the multnomah
Lake James
If
so then
could
get a stipulated
county clerk requiring him or her to issue a
judgment as above
with an additional
injunction
against
license
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the
ntended
recipient

this e mail
and
all
may
delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
law works com and
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
To
Potter
Sent
9 17 2013 3 42 05
Subject
Marriage Stipulated
Sheila
PM
Judgment
and
other
thoughts
Sheila
don
know
a federal judge would even declare a provision
if
under the Equal Protection

I
don
know
of any case in which that has been done
of the thousands of constitutional
would
like
Ideally
your
office
law cases
to consider whether
would contain a declaratory
it
but then neither I nor
In any event
this
wonder
of
all
its
that
Measure 36
statutes violate
subdivisions
by
cited
its
the Equal Protection
actual
Clause
article
and section number
in
the
and are void and unenforceable

a nd
marriage licenses
to issue marriage licenses
a federal judge would stay the effective
if
judgment would require mutual agreement
a stipulated
to the extent that they prohibit same sex couples from obtaining
requiring the state and
me kind of adversarial process

my te am are familiar with every one
idea has any appeal
judgment
and the relevant marriage
constitution
of a state constitutional and statutes unconstitutional
Clause and find a fundamental right to marriage without so
an order injunction
to same sex couples
date of the judgment
pending re solution of any appeal
in
the cases in other states
What would happen

conclusion
in
reasonable
the judgment
And
US
is
if
no one appealed
erroneous
Supreme Court
ruling
but a Supreme Court ruling later establishes that the legal
Would Oregon
the federal judge in Oregon
if
date of a judgment
stay the effective

is
to the judgment
then
still
be bound by the judgment
thinks such thoughts
we may
at
3 a
not have accomplished
That doesn
and decides
anything by
that
sound
the better course
is
on the issue
Just a few thoughts
Lake
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
to
suing in Oregon before there
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Potter
To
Sent
9 17 2013 10 22 02
Subject
Re
Lake
Did
our wires
wouldn
didn
think
It
and
couldn
was
to
Marriage
get
crossed
idea
that
any client
PM
If
wasn
anyway
t
even
and
a stipulated
can
It
Judgment
Stipulated
sign onto
a good
remains something
recommend
Sheila
other
clear
the
this morning
judgment
had
apologize
understood
the
you to
State
say that
you
from your perspective
imagine my office
s not
thoughts
way
to
would
resolve
sign onto
and
that
important questions
of
wouldn
constitutional
law
a federal
Besides
decide
each
the
other
lawyers
that
way
to
of
presented
law
s secondary
Deputy
Chief
don
get
to
of
bind
law
law
can
judges
with getting
the
right
stipulate
a judgment
be expected
to
analyze and
legal rulings by agreeing
as best
they
can
whether
with
the
or not
handle
Sheila
with a question
Lawyers
Judges are charged
agree
But
judge
question
those
We
won
kinds
of
to
on constitutionality
It
s just not
the
questions
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Sep
works
17
2013
com
of
at
Justice
3 42 PM
Lake
James Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
Sheila
I
don
know
statutes
if
a federal
unconstitutional
judge
would
under
the
marriage without
some
kind
been
then
neither
done
but
constitutional
I
would
like
Ideally
and
it
couples
all
I
of
Clause
its
would
in the
happen
establishes that
bound
by the
thinks
date
is
and
such
of
to
thoughts
a US Supreme
1906
James H
Works
SW
Portland
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
issue
judgment
we
Street
Oregon
503
227
1928
503
334
2340
97205
and
stay the
doesn
and
may not
on the
know
of
that
to
any case
one
of
and
right to
in which
the
require
36
cited
that
thousands
has
of
mutual agreement
by its
marriage statutes
extent
an order
effective
would
Measure
the
to
constitutional
a fundamental
same
date
that
they
injunction
actual
violate
prohibit
the
same
requiring the
article
Equal
sex
state
and
sex couples
of
the
judgment
pending
resolution
states
if
t
a state
find
has any appeal
relevant
marriage licenses
would
3 a m
the
unenforceable
in other
Court ruling
Lake
Law
and
judgment
this idea
and
That
Just a few thoughts
Lake
a stipulated
whether
no one
legal conclusion
at
don
of
and
are familiar with every
judgment
to
then
process
constitution
judge
judgment
a judgment
any event
consider
a provision
Clause
nor my team
marriage licenses
the
declare
Protection
a declaratory
cases
the
adversarial
I
are void
a federal
any appeal
What
in the
subdivisions
if
In
to
contain
number
from obtaining
wonder
of
cases
your office
would
section
Protection
law
of
even
Equal
appealed
in the
sound
reasonable
decides
have
issue
but
judgment
that
the
is
a Supreme
erroneous
And
better
accomplished
if
the
course
anything
Court ruling
later
Would
still
federal
is
to
by suing
Oregon
judge
be
in Oregon
stay the
in Oregon
effective
before
there
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 17 2013 10 31 42
Subject
Re
Yes
we
did speak
concluded
Lake
Law
that
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
this I
227
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
recipient
works
of
Civil
CONSERVE
delete
2013
Lake
Did
wouldn
didn
think
It
drafted
have
sense to
this before
either of
we
spoke
and
sent
it
once
we
us
Justice
and
at
to
sender
or privileged
immediately
this e mail and
our wires
t
get
a good
that
can
s not
even
and
potter
clear
you are not
doj state
this morning
judgment
the
to
intended
lake
law
had
or us
wrote
apologize
understood
you to
the
say that
State
you
imagine my office
the
If
e mail with a copy
attachments
sheila
wasn
a stipulated
anyway
I
It
If
information
by return
copies
Sheila
crossed
idea
any client
all
Potter
sign onto
remains something
recommend
the
10 22 PM
couldn
was
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
17
to
make
thoughts
other
com
PRINT
com and
Sep
and
97205
e mail may contain
works
appear
did not
Judgment
Street
Oregon
skype
On
about
PM
Stipulated
Perriguey
www
This
Marriage
this approach
http
OTLA
LLC
Portland
T
Sheila
way
to
resolve
would
sign onto
and
important questions
that
of
wouldn
constitutional
law
a federal
Besides
decide
each
the
other
lawyers
But
the
question
presented
law
Lawyers
Judges are charged
agree
that
way
judge
of
to
with a question
don
get
with getting
to
the
of
bind
law
law
can
judges
right
be expected
to
analyze and
as best
they
can
whether
with
the
or not
s secondary
We
handle
kinds
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
those
won
stipulate
of
questions
to
a judgment
It
s just not
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
17
Sep
works
2013
com
of
at
Justice
3 42 PM
Lake
James Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
Sheila
I
don
statutes
know
if
a federal
unconstitutional
judge
under
marriage without
some
kind
been
then
neither
done
but
constitutional
I
would
like
Ideally
article
Equal
same
would
Protection
and
wonder
cases
section
sex couples
state
I
it
and
law
your office
all
if
of
of
In
to
contain
number
Clause
and
any event
consider
judge
process
don
and
a stipulated
judgment
and
would
that
the
unenforceable
issue
of
a state
find
know
judgment
this idea
marriage licenses
to
and
of
and
effective
of
in which
the
require
and
right to
that
thousands
has
of
mutual agreement
has any appeal

Measure
36
relevant
to
the
date
cited
extent
to
of
by its
actual
marriage statutes
an order
marriage licenses
stay the
one
would
constitutional
a fundamental
any case
constitution
are void
a provision
Clause
whether
a declaratory
in the
declare
Protection
nor my team
subdivisions
a federal
even
Equal
adversarial
I
from obtaining
its
would
the
they
injunction
same
the
that
violate
requiring the
sex couples
judgment
the
prohibit
pending
resolution
What
of
would
any appeal
happen
establishes that
bound
by the
thinks
date
is
such
of
to
the
the
thoughts
a US Supreme
cases
judgment
if
legal conclusion
judgment
a judgment
in the
That
at
doesn
3 a m
then
we
and
states
no one
appealed
in the
sound
have
on the
judgment
reasonable
decides
may not
Court ruling
in other
that
the
but
is
And
if
better
accomplished
a Supreme
erroneous
the
federal
course
anything
Court ruling
Would
is
to
by suing
Oregon
judge
later
still
be
in Oregon
stay the
effective
in Oregon
before
there
issue
Just a few thoughts

Lake
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
please notify
com mailto
lake
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
the
sender
works
or privileged
immediately
com
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
lake
intended
law
attachments
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
law
www
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
97205
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
this e mail in error

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
9 17 2013 10 40 50
Subject
Re
Oh
good
Sheila
Marriage
PM
Judgment
Stipulated
and
other
thoughts
Whew
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
17
Sep
Yes
we
2013
we
Law
at
that
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
On
17
Lake
of
Civil
PRINT
Did
t
and
didn
think
wrote
this before
either of
we
spoke
and
sent
it
once
us
the
10 22 PM
our wires
was
get
remains something
that
any client
It
or privileged
immediately
all
Potter
crossed
sign onto
idea
to
sender
this e mail and
at
couldn
RESOURCES
confidential
a good
recommend
drafted
sense to
com
Justice
CONSERVE
delete
2013
wouldn
t
have
make
works
com
please notify
com and
It
works
e mail may contain
Sep
to
law
97205
227
skype
works
appear
did not
lake
Street
Oregon
recipient
Perriguey
Perriguey
www
This
this I
this approach
http
OTLA
about
Lake
LLC
Portland
T
Justice
10 31 PM
did speak
concluded
Lake
of
If
can
s not
even
t
and
H
t
potter
clear
judgment
you are not
doj state
this morning
I
to
the
lake
intended
law
had
or us
wrote
apologize
understood
you to
the
say that
State
you
imagine my office
the
If
e mail with a copy
attachments
sheila
wasn
a stipulated
anyway
I
copies
Sheila
information
by return
way
to
resolve
would
sign onto
and
important questions
of
that
wouldn
constitutional
law
a federal
Besides
decide
each
the
other
lawyers
But
the
question
law
presented
Lawyers
Judges are charged
agree
that
way
judge
of
to
with a question
don
get
with getting
to
the
bind
law
of
law
judges
right
can
be expected
to
analyze and
as best
they
can
whether
with
the
or not
s secondary
handle
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
We
those
won
kinds
of
stipulate
to
a judgment
It
s just not
questions
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
Sep
17
works
com
2013
of
at
Justice
3 42 PM
Lake
James Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
Sheila
I
and
to
don
know
if
a federal
unconstitutional
marriage without
has been
of
statutes
done
constitutional
some
but
law
then
kind
judge
of
In
the
even
Equal
adversarial
neither
cases
would
under
I
declare
process
nor my team
any event
a provision
Protection
I
Clause
don
of
and
know
a state
find
of
any case
a stipulated
judgment
would
constitutional
a fundamental
one
of
require
in which
the
right
that
thousands
mutual
agreement
Ideally
article
Equal
same
it
and
would
all
wonder
resolution
What
would
its
happen
by the
thinks
date
is
such
of
to
the
judge
thoughts
a judgment
and
to
at
doesn
we
and
Court ruling
and
the
has any appeal

36
cited
extent
an order
date
by its
actual
marriage statutes
that
they
injunction
to
same
of
the
violate
the
prohibit
requiring the
sex couples
judgment
pending
states
appealed
judgment
reasonable
decides
on the
to
effective
no one
have
Measure
relevant
marriage licenses
in the
sound
may not
the
unenforceable
in other
if
this idea
that
and
stay the
cases
judgment
3 a m
then
judgment
issue
would
in the
That
whether
marriage licenses
legal conclusion
judgment
a US Supreme
are void
the
consider
constitution
subdivisions
a federal
to
a declaratory
in the
and
any appeal
establishes that
bound
contain
number
from obtaining
of
if
of
your office
Clause
sex couples
and
like
section
Protection
state
I
would
that
the
is
but
And
if
better
accomplished
a Supreme
erroneous
the
federal
course
anything
Court ruling
Would
is
to
by suing
Oregon
judge
later
still
be
in Oregon
stay the
effective
in Oregon
before
there
issue
Just a few thoughts

Lake
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
Civil
PRINT
lake
context
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
works
com
RESOURCES
sender
works
or privileged
immediately
com
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
lake
intended
law
attachments
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
law
confidential
the
law
CONFIDENTIALITY
www
Justice
CONSERVE
please notify
com mailto
This
com http
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
97205
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 17 2013 10 42 23
Subject
Re
m meeting
couple
Lake
Law
of
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
Civil
PRINT
Oh
hope
to
have
a draft
complaint
to
you in a
the
intended
Justice
CONSERVE
17
delete
2013
good
at
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com and
Sep
thoughts
com
e mail may contain
recipient
On
tomorrow
other
97205
227
skype
works
cocounsel
and
Street
Oregon
www
This
Judgment
Perriguey
http
OTLA
PM
Stipulated
LLC
Portland
T
Marriage
with potential
James H
SW
days
Works
1906
Sheila
the
sender
or privileged
immediately
this e mail and

10 40 PM
all
Potter
copies
Sheila
information
by return
and
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
to
lake
law
attachments
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
Whew
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
17
Sep
Yes
we
we
2013
Law
that
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
Civil
PRINT
delete
Sep
2013
you didn
It
of
com and
17
Did
wouldn
t
drafted
sense to
com
wrote
this before
either of
we
spoke
and
sent
it
once
us
sender
10 22 PM
get
couldn
a good
any client
It
all
Potter
crossed
sign onto
idea
that
or privileged
immediately
this e mail and

at
was
RESOURCES
confidential
the
our wires
and
think
to
have
works
Justice
CONSERVE
remains something
recommend
to
make
law
com
please notify
Lake
State
works
e mail may contain
recipient
appear
did not
lake
97205
227
lagojaime
On
this I
Perriguey
Street
Oregon
skype
works
about
Lake
Perriguey
www
This
10 31 PM
this approach
http
OTLA
Justice
LLC
Portland
T
at
did speak
concluded
Lake
of
copies
Sheila
If
can
the
and
H
wasn
even
to
potter
clear
you are not
doj state
this morning
judgment
to
the
lake
intended
law
had
or us
wrote
apologize
understood
the
you to
say that
imagine my office
way
If
e mail with a copy
attachments
sheila
a stipulated
anyway
s not
information
by return
resolve
would
sign onto
important questions
and
of
that
wouldn
constitutional
law
Besides
decide
each
the
other
a federal
question
of
judge
law
presented
Lawyers
Judges are charged
don
with a question
t
get
with getting
to
the
bind
law
of
law
judges
right
can
be expected
to
analyze and
as best
they
can
whether
the
with
lawyers
the
agree
But
that
way
to
or not
s secondary
handle
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
those
We
won
kinds
of
stipulate
to
a judgment
It
s just not
questions
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
17
works
Sep
com
2013
of
at
Justice
3 42 PM
Lake
James Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
Sheila
I
and
to
don
know
if
done
I
Equal
same
it
and
would
Protection
and
all
wonder
resolution
What
if
its
by the
thinks
date
such
of
the
to
thoughts
a judgment
any event
to
and
don
judgment
and
that
and
would
stay the
effective
in other
states
doesn
3 a m
we
and
have
on the
that
any case
is
date
the
of
but
if
better
require
cited
that
the
the
that
thousands
mutual
by its
actual
the
judgment
is
violate
the
prohibit
requiring the
pending
Court ruling
Would
federal
course
they
sex couples
a Supreme
anything
of
injunction
same
erroneous
And
accomplished
36
extent
to
one
right
in which
marriage statutes
an order
appealed
judgment
reasonable
decides
may not
Court ruling
no one
sound
the
marriage licenses
in the
of
constitutional
a fundamental
has any appeal
Measure
to
cases
if
a state
find
would
relevant
judge
judgment
know
this idea
the
unenforceable
issue
of
and
judgment
whether
in the
That
at
Clause
marriage licenses
to
a provision
a stipulated
constitution
are void
the
then
process
consider
a declaratory
in the
declare
Protection
nor my team
legal conclusion
judgment
even
Equal
adversarial
subdivisions
happen
a US Supreme
In
and
a federal
establishes that
bound
of
contain
number
any appeal
would
the
from obtaining
of
of
would
under
your office
Clause
sex couples
state
judge
neither
cases
like
section
kind
then
law
would
Ideally
article
some
but
constitutional
agreement
is
a federal
unconstitutional
marriage without
has been
of
statutes
to
Oregon
judge
be
in Oregon
stay the
by suing
later
still
effective
in Oregon
before
there
issue
Just a few thoughts

Lake
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
recipient
lake
works
www
CONSERVE
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
law
Justice
e mail may contain
intended
law
97205
227
lake
the
law
or privileged
sender
works
information
immediately
com
and
delete
by return
If
you are not
the
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
NOTICE
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
information
applicable
law
If
that
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 20 2013 12 29 20
Subject
DRAFT COMPLAINT
Attachments
ATT00001 htm DRAFT COMPLAINT
Sheila
H
PM
docx
docx
LAW WORKS LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison St
OR
503 803 5184
972051718
Lake James
lake
OSB No
Perriguey
983213
works com
law
LAW WORKS LLC

1906 SW Madison Street
OR
Portland
Telephone
97205 1718
503
503
Facsimile
LAW
tetonlegal
tetonlegal
SW
Telephone
503
943 0244
821
SW
7801
OSB No
dorsayindianlaw
Dorsay
Easton
OR
Telephone
Facsimile
881413
com
LLP
Columbia Street
Portland
LLC
Street
Lea Ann Easton

leaston
TETON
97205 1718
503
Facsimile
SAGE
com
Madison
OR
Portland
112163
com
OFFICE OF
sage
1906
334 2340
OSB No
Sage J Teton
sage
227 1928
Suite 440
97204
503
503
790 9060
790
9068
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DEANNA L GEIGER JANINE
NELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT
OF OREGON
PORTLAND
NELSON
DIVISION
Case
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
Plaintiff
INJUNCTIVE
v
STATE OF OREGON JOHN

KITZHABER in his official capacity
Governor
of Oregon
ROSENBLUM
in
her official
Attorney General of Oregon
capacity as
OTHERS
Defendants
Page 1
as
ELLEN
COMPLAINT
OR OTHER RELIEF
No
Deanna
Plaintiffs
Geiger and Janine Nelson complain of Defendants and allege
INTRODUCTION
by the
Marriage
Bill
from the
and to
officials
liberty
a fundamental and basic civil
The
of Rights
vicissitudes
is
very purpose of the Bill
of political
establish
controversy
them as
and property
and other fundamental
on the outcome of no elections
624
1943
In 2004
liberty interests
that only a marriage between
as a marriage
Thereafter
Fairness Act
also
known
Or Const
in
May
creating a separate
as
another
Page 2
to withdraw certain subjects
them beyond the rea ch of majorities and
may
rights
not be submitted
sex couples
is
state
constitution
s right
the policy of Oregon
15
they depend
to vote
Barnette
people
US
319
some
of a
and
its
political
5a
institution
Though
it
who
of same sex
hardly fair
became
effective
register
passed the
this
Oregon Family
domestic partnerships
law created a
special set
on February 4 2008
as domestic partners only
of laws
This law
some
of the
who marry one
unequal treatment of gay and lesbian people denies them the fundamental
COMPLAINT
life
one man and one woman shall be valid or legally
the Oregon legislature
when
to
with a single sentence
of marital status that Oregon extends to heterosexual citizens
Oregon
One
of gay and lesbian people within the reach
It
and unequal
extends to lesbian and gay couples
legal benefits
Art
2007
skim milk marriages
only available to same
was
guaranteed
citizens
to be applied by the courts
which amended the
with discriminatory intent and effect
recognized
American
West Virginia State Board of Education
majority of voters to Measure 36
subdivisions
of
fueled by fear of and animus against a discrete an insular minority
Oregon voters put fundamental
packed
of Rights
to place
legal principles
right
and equal protection
liberties
the United
that
For these reasons
Or Const
Art
15
Plaintiffs
ask this Court to permanently
5a and any other Oregon
people from access to civil
enjoin
This Court has jurisdiction over
Venue
Rosenblum resides
is
enforcement
AND VENUE
all
and
in this district
because
and are continuing
all
States and 42
claims for relief pursuant to 28
proper in this Court pursuant
also proper in this district
all
marriage
This case raises questions under the Constitution of the United
1983
occurred
to
seek to exclude gay and lesbian
statutes that
JURISDICTION
by the Fourteenth Amendment
are guaranteed
States Constitution
of
under the law
to 28
1391 b
giving
rise
1331
because Defendant
Defendants reside in the State of California
a substantial part of the events
Venue
to the claim
is
to occur in this district
NATURE OF THE DISPUTE
that
Plaintiffs
Or Const
civilly
Art
15
Fourteenth
preventing
Page 3
1983 seeking 1
state
recognized
relationship
as heterosexual people
under the Due Process Clause and under the Equal Protection
Amendment
a declaration
5a which denies gay and lesbian people the equal opportunity to marry
and enter into the same
unconstitutional
bring this action pursuant to 42
to the United
State Constitution
the Defendants from enforcing
COMPLAINT
this
sentence
and
a permanent
against Plaintiffs
is
Clause of the
injunction
and wife
also seek
Plaintiffs
and by implication
a declaration
Clause of the Fourteenth
permanent injunction
Deanna
relationship
Plaintiffs
Due
Amendment
women
Oregon
Plaintiffs
marry for the same reasons so many other couples get married
and commitment before
their
and protections
security
Oregon marriage
marriage
in
plaintiff
Or Const
people
action
statutes that
Art
Amendment
Plaintiffs
fundamental
want to access
the State of Oregon refuses
15
favor same sex couples
the
rights
and
in
a 31
year committed
want the same
relief
the Court
all
al
pursuant to 42
that
Or Const
to acknowledge
order
C
S
to
of the federal benefits that
the
Art
15
their
marriages
5a and
union as a
of
favor same sex couples
Clause and the
the United
THE PARTIES
COMPLAINT
of their attorneys
may
want
Plaintiffs
ensure that each has the
statutes that
Protection
state legal
Due
Process Clause
States Constitution
liberties
also seek to recovery
and for any other
Equ
to the United
bring this lawsuit
constitutional
Plaintiffs
Page 4
all
through
5a and Oregon marriage
these rights and violate
of the Fourteenth
and community and to
Plaintiffs
to publicly declare their love
the same manner that the State of Oregon acknowledges
heterosexuals
deny
friends
of marriage
they are denied solely because
through
family
and 2
these statutes against Plaintiffs
of their union that the state of Oregon extends to same sex couples
recognition
husband
to
are unconstitutional
States Constitution
Geiger and Janine Nelson are
in
woman
refer
Process Clause and under the Equal
to the United
want to marry one another
which
statutes
man and
Defendants from enforcing
preventing
Plaintiffs
Oregon
marriage to only a
restrict
as applied to gay and lesbian couples under the
Protection
that
1983 to enforce
tates
fees
their
Constitution ensures for
costs
and expenses
for this
all
10
County
Plaintiff
Deanna
Geiger
an Oregon
is
citizen
and resides
in
Multnomah
Oregon
11
Plaintiff
Janine
Nelson
is
an Oregon
citizen
and resides
in
Multnomah
County
Oregon
Defendant John Kitzhaber
capacity
the Governor
is
is
the chief executive
to ensure State s law are enforced
maintains offices
xx
her official
in
the Governor
Salem and
in
fairly
officer
In his official
of the State of Oregon
and
uniformly
It
his responsibility
The Governor
constitutionally
Portland
Defendant Ellen Rosenblum
capacity
the Attorney General
is
is
the Attorney General of
in
he State of Oregon
the chief legal officer of the State of Oregon
her duty to ensure the State s laws are enforced
Attorney General maintains offices
fairly
Salem and
in
uniformly
and
constitutionally
In
It
is
The
Portland
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
xx
For over 25 years gay and lesbian Oregonians have faced
discriminatory ballot measure initiatives
and
statutes
anti
These measures aimed to amend Oregon
to adversely affect fundamental
liberty interests
and the
legal rights
gay and
constitution
of gay and
lesbian Oregonians
xx
Plaintiffs
have endured these
the past 25 years
Page 5
COMPLAINT
efforts
to undermine their fundamental rights over
The Supreme Court
xx
Zablocki
434
Redhail
US
374
the most important relation in
384
quotation
1978
internal
and public commitment
expression
of emotional
1987
a far reaching legal acknowledgement
It
is
United
people
The
to achieve
their
as
it
is
for opposite
exclusion
June 26 2013
second
all
class status
Moreover
they
humiliates the
difficult
12 307
children
Slip
now
Op
at
United States v
and
their
children
The
are unworthy
xx
community and
Plaintiffs
are identical
Plaintiffs
make
78 95
between two
June 26 2013
This
is
to opposite
12 307
Id
sex couples
at
of their
all
Slip
sex
22 23
and
in their daily lives
sex couples in
same
tells
ability
Op
at
18
and relegated to a
are stigmatized
exclusion
and denies them
stability
No
Windsor
of recognition
being raised by same
families in their
laws undermines the plaintiff
for the children to understand the integrity and closeness
concord with other
US
20
and an
482
Safley
life
sex couples
by being barred from marriage
the world that their relationships
Turner v
threatens their mutual economic
a dignity and status of immense import
US
marks omitted
of the intimate relationship
from marriage by Oregon
goals and dreams
life
No
Windsor
States v
as true for plaintiffs
xx
support
has called marriage
makes
own
Id
at
couples and
And
it
it
even more
family and
its
23
of the characteristics
relevant
to marriage
xx
Like opposite
sex couples
the same commitment to one another as opposite
same sex couples build
and hope to grow old together
emotionally and financially
Like opposite sex couples
and take care of one another ph
illness
Page 6
their lives
COMPLAINT
together
sex couples
plan their futures together
same sex couples support one another
ysically
when
faced with injury or
xx
children
some
Like
Plaintiffs
obligations
of marriage
xx
Plaintiffs
no
recognition
less
The
and other same
sex couples from the
exclusion
xx
Plaintiffs
Ginsberg has termed
taxes
legal
if
have access to equal
protections
and the
and
afforded
to married couples including
security
social
if
their
Some
social
in
them
the areas of
of the federal protections
marriages are legally recognized
status
As
a contemporary
skim milk marriage
civil
a result
institution
in
for
the state
separate and unequal construct
This separate
that Plaintiffs
of marriage and relegated to
and unequal
that
institution
are less worthy than opposite
Justice
stigmatizes the
sex couples to
rights
Plaintiffs
and
their families suffer
significant
emotional
economic harms
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF CLAIM ONE DUE PROCESS
Page 7
the
permitted to marry would
sex couple from marriage denies
are excluded from the esteemed
by sending the message
xx
sex couples to assume
live
domestic partnership
Plaintiffs
many
as a same
of Plaintiffs
married couples are only available to couples
which they
PLAINTIFFS
to married couples
immigration and citizenship
in
sex couples are parents raising
sex couples in Oregeon
for numerous federal protections
eligibility
some same
are just as willing and able as opposite
than opposite
afforded
xx
sex couples
POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL
together
xx
benefit
opposite
COMPLAINT
physical
and
xx
Plaintiffs
incorporate
here by reference paragraphs 1 through
supra
as
if
fully
set
forth herein
XX
Due
Or Const
Process Clause
Art
both on
Or Const
xx
15
its
Art
5a
violates
fundamental
15
5a
impinges on fundamental
the opportunity to marry civilly
family relationship
with their loved ones as opposite
the same
marriage
the State
is
and
are protected
by the
differently
respe ct
to oppo
named
by denying gay and
site
sanctioned
officially
For example
sex individuals
stigmatizing gays and lesbians
and denying them the same dignity
liberties
designation afforded
allowing them access only to the separate
relationship
that
face and as applied to Plaintiffs
lesbian individuals
those individuals
liberties
by denying
and instead
sex couples
as well as their children and families
and stature afforded
officially
recognized
opposite
sex family relationships
CLAIM
40
Plaintiffs
incorporate
TWO EQUAL PROTECTION
supra
as
if
fully
set
forth herein
Or Const
41
only
husband
both on
its
husband
are therefore
Page 8
wife
15
violate
5a and Oregon
statutes referring
to marriage and describing
Amendment
42
only
and
Art
Or Const
and
wife
Art
15
restrict
5a
civil
and Oregon
marriage to individuals
unable to marry one another
COMPLAINT
statutes referring
Oregon law
to marriage and describing
of the opposite
treats similarly
sex
Plaintiffs
situated people differently
by providing
marriage to heterosexua
civil
couples
but not to gay and lesbian couples
without
legal justification
Xx
The
unpopular
politically
in
state
Multnomah
Art
5a was placed
15
on the
placed
stems from public disapproval
Plaintiffs
ballot in
County and Benton County
on the Oregon
to same
By amending Oregon
sex couples
courts from recognizing
plaintiff
against a
ballot in
2004 as
response to same sex marriages
after their
respective county commissions
the Oregon Constitution and Oregon law as authorizing
interpreted
licenses
Or Const
group
The measure was
Measure 36
performed
damage to
resulting
constitution
s state constitutional
the issuing of
ma
a majority could
rights
rriage
prevent the
to marry and to equal
protection
Or Const
xx
heterosexuals violates
sex
These
legal
Art
15
5a and
provisions
distinguish
all
state statutes
Clause because
to the extent they limit
they discriminates
marriage to
on the
between couples consisting of a man and a
basis
woman
of
and
couples consisting of individ uals of the same sex
CLAIM THREE
xx
fully
set
Plaintiffs
Insofar
statutes that limit
and
Amendment
Page 9
US C
1983
supra
as
if
forth herein
xx
depriving
incorporate
VIOLATION OF 42
will
as they are enforcing
marriage to husband
continue
to the United
the terms of
and wife
to deprive Plaintiffs
Or Const
Defendants
15
5a and Oregon
acting under color of state law
of numerous rights secured
States Constitution in violation of 42
COMPLAINT
Art
by the Fourteenth
1983
are
IRREPARABLE
xx
fully
set
incorporate
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
are
now
marriage to husband
Equal Protection
Clauses of the Fourteenth
this
Or Const
severely and irreparably injured
statutes that limit
if
supra
as
if
forth herein
48
only
INJURY
and wife
15
Art
Due
a state law that violates the
Amendment
Court declares these laws unconstitutional
Plaintiffs
injuries will
and enjoins Defendants
5a and Oregon
fr
Process and
be redressed
om
enforcing
them
An
xx
actual and judicially cognizable
Defendants regarding
husband
and wife
Fourteenth
whether Or Const
violate
the
Amendment
Due
Art
controversy
15
5a and Oregon
Process Clause and the
Defendants are enforcing
exists
Equa
this state
between
statutes that
Protection
law to
Plaintiff
Plaintiff
limit
and
marriage to
Clause of the
detriment
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE
Plaintiff
Plaintiffs
Const
pray for judgment
respectfully
Art
15
request that this Court
5a and Oregon
enter a declaratory
judgment
Process and Equal Protection
1983
Page 10
COMPLAINT
as follows
pursuant
statutes that limit
stating
that
to 28
USC
2201
marriage to husband
construe
and wife and
laws that bar same sex marriage violate
Or
Amendment and 42
Due
Plaintiffs
respectfully
enforcement
or application
marriage to husband
Plaintiffs
42
DATED
US C
request that this Court enter a permanent injunction
respectfully
1988
of
Or Const
and wife and
that
Art
15
bar same
5a and Oregon
all
statutes that
reasonable attorneys
further relief to which they are entitled
September 18 2012
LAW WORKS
Lake James
LLC
Perriguey
LAKE JAMES H PERRIGUEY

OSB No 983213
SAGE J TETON
OSB No 112163
Telephone
LEA
503
227 1928
ANN EASTON
OSB No
Page 11
COMPLAINT
limit
sex marriage
request costs of suit including
and
enjoining
fees under
Page 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 22 2013 5 44 54
Subject
22636408
Attachments
22636408
See the attached
analysis
Sheila
H
PM
DOCX
DOCX ATT00001
htm
regarding third party intervention
Suite
2400
1300
SW
Avenue
Fifth
Portland
OR
Gregory
A Chaimov
97201
503 778 5328
5610
tel
503 778 5299
fax
gregorychaimov
dwt
com
MEMORANDUM
To
David Fidanque and Jann Carson
From
Gregory
Date
September 23 2013
Subject
Intervention
memorandum
This
to require a district
validity
L Ed
2d 768
2013
court to allow the person to intervene
on the whether the
primarily
The applicant has a

transaction
The
The
that
is
disposition
an action
state
defends
that
a sufficient
challenges
the
the
challenged
measure
existing
Bradbury
Prete v
F3d 915
919
two requirements
Absent
district
By
Prete
a very compelling
F3d 1078 1086
o protect
may
parties
438 F3d 949
2004
2003
protectable
significant
may
954
438 F3d
at
court
considerations
County
DWT
may
of
of
permit a chief
of
right
equity
Los Angeles
22636408v1
and
Prete
judicial
0050062 082039
impair or impede the
quoting
United States v
Alisol Water
a chief petitioner
petitioner
438 F3d
at
956
quoting
Arakai v
of a measure will be deemed
from intervening
court erred
when
a dequate
370
the
fulfills
petitioner
economy
to
intervene
to
grant or
Prete v
1990
despite
deny
the chief
permissive
Bradbury
Cayetano
first
petitioner
intervention
438 F3d
438 F3d 949
324
and preclude a
as a matter of right
allenge to 2002 Ballot Measure 26
777
Corp
In Prete
allowing the chief petitioner
adequately represents the interests of the
he decision
918 F2d 763
matter
955
defense
the Oregon government
as a matter
to the property or
and
interest
2007
showing
intervene as a matter of right in a ch
A district
as a practical
of having been chief
virtue
state
its
court from permitting a chief petitioner
intervene
relating
not adequately represent the applicant s interest
the Court of Appeals ruled that the district
presumes
interest
the subject of the action
of the action
applicant s ability
in
is
court must grant a timely motion to intervene that shows
Hollingsworth v
after
a person s role as chief petitioner
of the state measure of which the person was chief petitioner
The answer depends
and Paul Southwick
responds to your request for our views on whether
133 SCt 2652 186
Perry
basis
Chaimov
at
957
to
court
chief petitioner
lacking the qualifications
is
discretionary
958 n 13
2007
subject
quoting
to
to
Garza
From
this analysis
FRCP
24 a
we
the state elects
if
court must allow a person to intervene
conclude that a district
under
not to defend a challenge to the measure of which the person
was
chief petitioner
Perry holds that a person does not establish standing to sue by virtue of having
Hollingsworth v
served as chief petitioner of a challenged

adverse
decision
rendered in the action
did not address whether
in
measure
and
therefore
the person
which the person intervened
may
not appeal
Hollingsworth v
an
Perry
a chief petitioner must establish standing to sue to intervene as a matter
of right
We
expect
therefore
that
First
notwithstanding
decided whether
FRCP
an intervenor
at
must
955 n 8
require an independent showing
Thompson
standing
Second
321 F3d 835
requirements
district
Entertainment
846
Inc
meeting
Fielding
the Supreme Court
is
proper
regardless of whether
citation
See e g
Ms
9th Cir 2003
when
court will
US
2013
proponents
left
that
the Ninth
Circuit has not
the requirements
of
court to consider the Ninth Circuit not to

State of California
Dep
of Soc
Servs
Rosales did not need to meet Article III
the requirements
Dist
at
Perry not to require a showing
FRCP
24 a
LEXIS 109251
court s judgment
issue
the government
the interveners
of
For example
p
CD
is
at
the district
enforcing
level
the initiative
the district
Hollingsworth v
In so doing
intact
court
in
of
Vivid
in
Cal 2013
of a measure to intervene because
the district
implicitly
it
intervention
by
initiative
but refuses to defend
have standing independent of the government
it
defendants
omitted
There are Ninth Circuit cases that could be read
meeting the requirements of FRCP 24 a
to
say that a person
22636408v1 0050062 082039
establishes
Those statements are not viable
2
DWT
other cases
expect the district
of standing
approved of the framework currently

proponents
in
standing to sue in addition
establish
we
to intervene
court permitted the official

Perry
and
courts are interpreting Hollingsworth v
standing to in addition
the district
to intervene to defend the measure
a statement in Prete
438 F3d
24 a
not the defend Measure 36
the state elects
if
permit the chief petitioners
standing
to
afterHollingsworth
sue
v
by virtue of
Perry
Lake James
Perriguey
LawWorksLLC
1906
SW
Portland
T
F
Madison
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
skype
OTLA
www
Street
97205
lawworks com
lagojaime
Guardian
of Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT
CONSERVE RESOURCES
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
9 23 2013 10 46 12
Subject
RE
Thanks
We
are looking
From
Lake
Sent
Sunday
To
Potter
Subject
See
the
Perriguey
22636408
at
Sheila
22636408
attached
AM
DOCX
this
mailto
September 22
lake
2013
law
works
com
5 45 PM
H
1 DOCX
analysis
regarding
third party
intervention
From
Dave Fidanque
To
Mary Williams
Sent
9 23 2013 3 13 33
Subject
Continue
PM
Our Conversation
Mary
to touch base with you briefly about additional info that
like
discussed
last
came
to
my
attention
over the weekend
on
the topic
week
can be reached on
my cell
541 954 7731
Thanks
Dave
David Fidanque
Executive
ACLU
P
of
Director
Oregon
Box 40585
Portland
OR
pdx 503 227 6928 eug 541

m 541 954 7731 dfidanque
www
This
97240
683 9277
aclu or org
aclu or org
message
reply email
may
that
this
contain
information
message
has been
that
is
confidential
inadvertently
or
legally
transmitted
to
privileged
you and
If
ou
delete th
are not the intended

is
email
from
your
recipient
system
please
immediately
advise
the
sender by
From
Dave Fidanque
To
Mary Williams
CC
Kevin Diaz
Sent
9 23 2013 5 45 25
Subject
Memo
Attachments
22636408
PM
DOCX
ATT00001
txt
Mary
With
the
Greg
s take
Dave
caveat
we
discussed
on intervention
that
in the
this does
not
circumstance
represent
I
described
an official
to
him
ACLU
position
here
is
Suite
2400
1300
SW
Avenue
Fifth
Portland
OR
Gregory
A Chaimov
97201
503 778 5328
5610
tel
503 778 5299
fax
gregorychaimov
dwt
com
MEMORANDUM
To
David Fidanque and Jann Carson
From
Gregory
Date
September 23 2013
Subject
Intervention
memorandum
This
to require a district
validity
L Ed
2d 768
2013
court to allow the person to intervene
on the whether the
primarily
The applicant has a

transaction
The
The
that
is
disposition
an action
state
defends
that
a sufficient
challenges
the
the
challenged
measure
existing
Bradbury
Prete v
F3d 915
919
two requirements
Absent
district
By
Prete
a very compelling
F3d 1078 1086
o protect
may
parties
438 F3d 949
2004
2003
protectable
significant
may
954
438 F3d
at
court
considerations
County
DWT
may
of
of
permit a chief
of
right
equity
Los Angeles
22636408v1
and
Prete
judicial
0050062 082039
impair or impede the
quoting
United States v
Alisol Water
a chief petitioner
petitioner
438 F3d
at
956
quoting
Arakai v
of a measure will be deemed
from intervening
court erred
when
a dequate
370
the
fulfills
petitioner
economy
to
intervene
to
grant or
Prete v
1990
despite
deny
the chief
permissive
Bradbury
Cayetano
first
petitioner
intervention
438 F3d
438 F3d 949
324
and preclude a
as a matter of right
allenge to 2002 Ballot Measure 26
777
Corp
In Prete
allowing the chief petitioner
adequately represents the interests of the
he decision
918 F2d 763
matter
955
defense
the Oregon government
as a matter
to the property or
and
interest
2007
showing
intervene as a matter of right in a ch
A district
as a practical
of having been chief
virtue
state
its
court from permitting a chief petitioner
intervene
relating
not adequately represent the applicant s interest
the Court of Appeals ruled that the district
presumes
interest
the subject of the action
of the action
applicant s ability
in
is
court must grant a timely motion to intervene that shows
Hollingsworth v
after
a person s role as chief petitioner
of the state measure of which the person was chief petitioner
The answer depends
and Paul Southwick
responds to your request for our views on whether
133 SCt 2652 186
Perry
basis
Chaimov
at
957
to
court
chief petitioner
lacking the qualifications
is
discretionary
958 n 13
2007
subject
quoting
to
to
Garza
From
this analysis
FRCP
24 a
we
the state elects
if
court must allow a person to intervene
conclude that a district
under
not to defend a challenge to the measure of which the person
was
chief petitioner
Perry holds that a person does not establish standing to sue by virtue of having
Hollingsworth v
served as chief petitioner of a challenged

adverse
decision
rendered in the action
did not address whether
in
measure
and
therefore
the person
which the person intervened
may
not appeal
Hollingsworth v
an
Perry
a chief petitioner must establish standing to sue to intervene as a matter
of right
We
expect
therefore
that
First
notwithstanding
decided whether
FRCP
an intervenor
at
must
955 n 8
require an independent showing
Thompson
standing
Second
321 F3d 835
requirements
district
Entertainment
846
Inc
meeting
Fielding
the Supreme Court
is
proper
regardless of whether
citation
See e g
Ms
9th Cir 2003
when
court will
US
2013
proponents
left
that
the Ninth
Circuit has not
the requirements
of
court to consider the Ninth Circuit not to

State of California
Dep
of Soc
Servs
Rosales did not need to meet Article III
the requirements
Dist
at
Perry not to require a showing
FRCP
24 a
LEXIS 109251
court s judgment
issue
the government
the interveners
of
For example
p
CD
is
at
the district
enforcing
level
the initiative
the district
Hollingsworth v
In so doing
intact
court
in
of
Vivid
in
Cal 2013
of a measure to intervene because
the district
implicitly
it
intervention
by
initiative
but refuses to defend
have standing independent of the government
it
defendants
omitted
There are Ninth Circuit cases that could be read
meeting the requirements of FRCP 24 a
to
say that a person
22636408v1 0050062 082039
establishes
Those statements are not viable
2
DWT
other cases
expect the district
of standing
approved of the framework currently

proponents
in
standing to sue in addition
establish
we
to intervene
court permitted the official

Perry
and
courts are interpreting Hollingsworth v
standing to in addition
the district
to intervene to defend the measure
a statement in Prete
438 F3d
24 a
not the defend Measure 36
the state elects
if
permit the chief petitioners
standing
to
afterHollingsworth
sue
v
by virtue of
Perry
Sent from
my iPad
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 27 2013 9 48 11
Subject
Discrmination
Sheila
AM
Sheila
Please
give
Lake James
me
a ring today
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
9 27 2013 9 48 16
Subject
Automatic
am out
of
the
e mail until
contact
case
Chief
related
Otherwise
office
return
Sheila
on Thursday
will
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
Cheryl
please contact
respond
when
Trial Counsel
of
and
on September 30
Trial Counsel
matter
AM
Discrmination
reply
Justice
Friday
If
September 26 and
you have
Pellegrini
at
an urgent
503
947
my legal assistant
return
Thank
you
27
matter
4700
Samantha
If
will
not
for the
you have
Mo on at
be checking
Division
an urgent
971
673
1880
please
From
Lake Perriguey
To
mary
Sent
9 27 2013 9 50 35
Subject
Discrimination
Ms
Dear
Please
williams
doj state or
us
AM
Williams
give
me
call at
your
early
opportunity
Thank you
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 28 2013 6 04 48
Subject
New
Attachments
The New Yorker
Sheila
mary
Yorker Article
williams
doj state
PM
Edith
Windsor
Sep 30 2013 pdf
or
us
The
New Yorker
Sep
30 2013
httparchivesnewyorkercomglobalprintasppath=djvuConde20moteprefix=httpimagesarchivesnewyorkercompagecount=90v=v44
92813 531
Page
of
PM
10
The
New Yorker
Sep
30 2013
92813 531
Page 2
of
PM
10
The
New Yorker
Sep
30 2013
92813 531
Page
of
PM
10
The
New Yorker
Sep
30 2013
92813 531
Page 4 of
PM
10
The
New Yorker
Sep
30 2013
92813 531
Page
of
PM
10
The
New Yorker
Sep
30 2013
92813 531
Page 6
of
PM
10
The
New Yorker
Sep
30 2013
92813 531
Page
7 of
PM
10
The
New Yorker
Sep
30 2013
92813 531
Page 8
of
PM
10
The
New Yorker
Sep
30 2013
92813 531
Page 9
of
PM
10
The
New Yorker
Sep
30 2013
92813 531
Page 10
of
PM
10
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
9 29 2013 2 38 33
Subject
Legal Challenge
Attachments
Sheila
Draft
mary
williams
doj state
or
us
PM
Provision of Or Constitution
Discriminatory
COMPLAINT
docx
Dear Sheila and Mary
Attached
hope
is
is
to
an updated
draft
This draft anticipates a filing

state officials
It
is
in
all
of the lawsuit
act throughout
parties
interest
in
Portland
plan to
We may
file
add additional
who have
laintiffs
children
My
we
are considering
Eugene
filing
in
With
this in
Th ough our
clients live in
Portland
the state
to advance
position with regard federal venue
Lake James
we
within the next 10 days
file
the case expeditiously
and to a possible
filing
in
mind
would
like
to
know
the State s
Eugene
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
skype
www
97205
law works com
lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of Civil Justice

PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail
may
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
the
Lake James
lake
OSB No
Perriguey
983213
works com
law
LAW WORKS LLC

OR
Portland
Telephone
97205 1718
503
503
Facsimile
334 2340
OSB No
Sage J Teton
sage
227 1928
tetonlegal
112163
com
LAW
OFFICE OF
SAGE
1906
SW
Street
Madison
OR
Portland
Telephone
Lea Ann Easton

leaston
LLC
97205 1718
503
503
Facsimile
TETON
943 0244
821
7801
OSB No
dorsayindianlaw
881413
com
DORSAY EASTON
1
SW
Columbia Street
OR
Portland
Telephone
503
503
Facsimile
Suite 440
97204
790 9060
790
9068
DEANNA L GEIGER
and
JANINE
NELSON

DISTRICT
OF OREGON
PORTLAND
DEANNA L GEIGER
and JANINE
DIVISION
Case
No
NELSON
Plaintiff
INJUNCTIVE
v
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
as Governor
ROSENBLUM
in
in his official
of Oregon
her official
Waldruf
in his official
Multnomah
capacity
and Randy
capacity as
County Assessor
Defendants
Page 1
ELLEN
COMPLAINT
as
OR OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiffs
Deanna
Geiger and Janine Nelson complain of Defendants and allege
INTRODUCTION
by the
Marriage
Bill
from the
very purpose of the Bill
of political
vicissitudes
establish
them as
and property
liberty
a fundamental and basic civil
The
of Rights
and to
officials
is
controversy
and other fundamental
on the outcome of no elections
624
638
1943
In 2004
the fundamental
right that
single
sentence
packed
legally recognized
some
to withdraw certain subjects
them beyond the reach of majorities and
One
rights
may
not be submitted
s right
to vote
some Oregon
voters put gays
this initiative
with discriminatory intent and effect
This
319
people denies
Amendment
Or Const
Art
Page 2
106 300
them the fundamental
to the United
US
It
fundamental
the state constitution
is
with a
106 340
liberties
15
COMPLAINT
its
5a
and unequal
institution
of same sex
law extends to lesbian and gay couples only
Oregon
who
unequal treatment of gay and lesbian
States Constitution
and
one man and one woman shall be valid or
of the legal benefits of marital status that Oregon extends to heterosexual citizens
ORS
life
they depend
Barnette
and lesbians
amended
Oregon statutory law includes the separate
marry one another
to
gay and lesbian people should be treated with equal respect and
as a marriage
guaranteed
citizens
to be applied by the courts
subdivisions
political
was
West Virginia State Board of Education
Passed as Measure 36
to a vote
American
of
fueled by fear of the possibility that Oregon courts would recognize
dignity under the marriage laws
liberties
of Rights
to place
legal principles
right
guaranteed by the
ourteenth
of
For these reasons
Or Const
Art
15
Plaintiffs
5a and any other Oregon
people from access to civil
Venue
Rosenblum resides
proper
AND VENUE
all
and
because
all
States and 42
proper in this Court pursuant to 28
in this district
in this district
and are continuing
is
enforcement
marriage
1983
all
seek to exclude gay and lesbian
statutes that
JURISDICTION
enjoin
1391 b
Defendants reside in the State of
giving
rise
1331
because Defendant
Oregon
Venue
is
also
to the claims occurred
NATURE OF THE DISPUTE
that
Plaintiffs
Or Const
civilly
Art
15
Fourteenth
preventing
and wife
state
recognized
relationship
1983 seeking 1
Amendment
to the United
State Constitution
Plaintiffs
a declaration
as heterosexual people
also seek
and by implication
restrict
this
sentence
a declaration
COMPLAINT
that
Due
and
is
Clause of the
a permanent injunction
against Plaintiffs
Oregon
marriage to only a
Page 3
5a which denies gay and lesbian people the equal opportunity to marry
unconstitutional
statutes
man and
which
woman
refer
to
husband
are unconstitut
ional
Protection
committed
relationship
want the same
couples
legal
Plaintiffs
Deanna
want to access
constitution
in
discrimination
The Oregon
of their union that the
all
Section 5 of Article 15
is
further bolstered
to acknowledge
fails
by Oregon marriage
rights
and
also seek recovery
and for any other
under the law
Amendment
union as a
relief
liberties
of
the Court
in violation
to the United
all
that
COMPLAINT
the United
of their attorneys
may
order
THE PARTIES
Page 4
their
friends
Plaintiffs
sex
and
of marriage
Oregon
marriage
favor opposite
statutes that
pursuant to 42
bring this lawsuit
constitutional
Plaintiffs
in
State of Oregon extends to opposite
Constitution and Oregon marriage statutes deny plaintiff
Plaintiffs
fundamental
Oregon
of the federal benefits that they are denied because the
Process Clauses of the Fourteenth
action
in
each partner has the security and protections
that
to marry and deny them equal protection
people
who have been
want to marry for the same reasons so many other couples choose to get
community and to ensure
Due
women
and 2
against Plaintiffs
to publicly declare their love and commitment before their family
married
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
States Constitution
these statutes
for 31 years
recognition
to the United
preventing
Plaintiffs
Amendment
This
sex couples
of their fundamental
of the Equal Protection
and
States Constitution
1983 to enforce
their
States Cons titution ensures
fees
right
costs
and expenses
for
all
for this
10
County
Plaintiff
Deanna
Geiger
is
an Oregon
She resides
citizen
Multnomah
in
Oregon
11
County
Plaintiff
Janine
Nelson
is
an Oregon
She resides
citizen
in
Multnomah
Oregon
xx
capacity
the Governor
is
is
the Governor
the chief executive
to ensure that the State s laws are enforced
maintains offices
xx
her official
in
Salem and
in
uniformly
fairly
and
In his official
It
his responsibility
constitutionally
The Governor
Portland
capacity
officer
the Attorney
is
is
Gene
ral
uniformly
fairly
and
In
It
is
The
constitutionally
Attorney General maintains offices in Salem and in Portland
xx
Waldruff
Defendant
is
Randy Waldruff
the County Assessor for Multnomah
Defendants
and those subject to
responsible for the enforcement
requested in this action
Defendant
s officers
Defendant
under
is
of
Or Const
Art
supervision
15
5a and
sought against each Defendant
employ ees and agents
their
their
supervision
at their
and against
direction
all
all
Randy
COMPLAINT
direction
and control are
Oregon marriage
statutes
The
as well as against each
persons acting in cooperation
or under their control
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Page 5
County
responsible for maintain ing vital records of marriages and issuing marriage licenses
xx
relief
is
with
Gay and
xx
measure
and
four anti gay and discriminatory ballot
faced
These measures aimed to amend Oregon
over the past 25 years
initiatives
constitution
lesbian Oregonians have
to adversely affect fundamental liberty interests and the legal rights of
statutes
gay and lesbian Oregonians
As
xx
undermine
their
xx
March 2004
same sex couples
register
Also
in
in
Nevertheless
man and
legal effect
that
woman
Oregon
and 2
that
Several same
State Registrar
would not
at
County along with approximately
a solemnization
the Governor
sex couples
register
their
constitution
the same manner that
it
afforded
Multnomah
Page 6
from
3 000 other gay and
their
issuing marriage licenses
to
the State Registrar refused to
either
of these counties
that
The
reasons
the Attorney General of Oregon
all
state
agencies
to refuse to give
sex couples
who were
issued marriage licenses
unions as marriages
only to find
sued the State of Oregon
that
the
seeking a
required that Oregon afford marriage to same sex couples
marriage to heterosexual
County Circuit Court Judge
COMPLAINT
had instructed
issues to same
that
direction
Records
ceremony to publicly declare
sex marriages were 1
the Governor
Oregon
declaration
of these efforts to
marriage statutes currently defined marri age as a union between a
to marriage licenses
xx
all
issued a marriage license by the
any same sex marriage records forwarded
had concluded
have endured
March 2004 Benton County began
given for refusal to register the same
in
were
Plaintiffs
They participated
to marry
Plaintiffs
rights
Division of Multnomah
lesbian couples
intention
Oregon residents
fundamental
In
Management
lifelong
Frank
couples
Bearden ruled
that
On
there
April 20
was no
2004
justifiable
state
constitutional
the legislature
so as to
xx
made dependent
ab
in
specifically
exclude gay and lesbian people from access to
who marry
This
On November
was Measure 36
fundamental rights were once again placed
Upon
on the outcome of an election
its
within the reach
passage
Measure 36
the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the marriage licenses issued
and Benton Counties to
Thereafter
Fairness Act
the Act
partnerships
Though
in
May
creating
it
aims
2007
Plantiffs
and thousands of other same
couples of
xx
many
at fairness
acknowledge
including
that
his state
the families of same
should be provided
to achieve
Page 7
s legislative
and unequal
when
sex couples were
by Oregon
findings
institution
sex couples
sex
domestic
on February 4 20 08
these laws denied same
ORS
of
106 300
he Act
at
ORS
it
sex
106 340
106 305
has a strong interest in promoting stable and lasting families
sex couples and their children
potential
COMPLAINT
effective
the adoption
with the opportunity to obtain necessary
their fullest
of same
marriage statutes
supporting
Oregon Family
passed the
the Act became
only to same
of the benefits afforded
Oregon
the Oregon legislature
a separate
created a special set of laws available
ability
a petition to
initio
xx
directed
enshrining discrimination into Oregon s constitution
In April 2005
by Multnomah
He
Cite
of Marriage Coalition began circulating
to heterosexual people
gay and lesbian Oregonians
successful
void
Defense
later
the state constitution
of a majority and
was
or gender
to address the discrimination
the rights granted
2004
for discrimination based on sexual orientation
One month
xx
amend
basis
and
legal
that
ll
protections
Oregon
and
families
status
and the
xx
provisions
differ
that
ORS
both individuals
106 325 5
framework
in
front of
two
the Act s
owing ways
seeking to enter into a
Oregon
marriage statutes
ORS
17 year olds can marry with parental consent
Marriage requires solemnization
106 150
legal
the marriage statutes in the foll
must be 18 years of age
include a provision
in
and unequal
a separate
for a domestic partnership
qualify
however
to creating
from the provisions
To
In addition
witnesses
ORS
106 010
106 010
Domestic partnerships require no solemnization
for a domestic partnership must consent
Applicants
to Oregon court jurisdiction
requiring the parties to consider the possibility of a future dissolution
very inception
possibility
ORS
of divorce
106 325 4
of their partnership at
Opposite sex couples are not forced to
by consenting to Oregon court
jurisdiction
at
anticipate
its
the
the time they apply to get
married
ORS
Oregon affirm your
right
for recognition
There
is
marriage license must contain the following
the property of the other
is
no
similar
Redhail
434
US
374
requirement
for same
sex couples applying
support
384
quotation
1978
internal
and public commitment
1987
a far reaching legal acknowledgement
Page 8
the same time to live within the marriage
the most important relation in
of emotional
is
laws of the State of
has called marriage
expression
It
at
The
under the domestic partnership laws
The Supreme Court
xx
that
to enter into marriage and
from violence and abuse
Zablocki
provides
Neither you nor your spouse
statement
free
106 041 4
COMPLAINT
marks omitted
Turner v
Safley
of the intimate relationship
482
life
and an
78 95
between two
United
people
States v
as true for Plaintiffs
xx
to achieve
as
it
is
No
Windsor
for opposite
status
that
Slip
Op
US
20
at
June 26 2013
Being excluded from marriage by Oregon law undermines the
their
life
goals and dreams
June 26 2013
Moreover
their relationships
United States v
Plaintiffs
The
by being barred from marriage
are unworthy
exclusion
of recognition
now
children
to understand the integrity and closeness
sex couples
and
Plaintiffs
are identical
to opposite
same
Id
22 23
makes
of their
families in their community and in their daily lives
xx
is
Id
it
own
at
sex
12 307
Slip
even more difficult
family and
all
humiliates
it
its
Op
class
couples and
And
abilities
and denies them
and relegated to second
tells
at
Plaintiffs
stability
No
Windsor
are stigmatized
children
being raised by same
This
sex couples
a dignity and status of immense import
US
12 307
at
18
citizen
the world
the
for the
concord with other
23
sex couples in
all
relevant
to marriage
xx
Like opposite
Same
sex couples are just as committed
sex couples
same sex couples build
emotionally and financially
to each other as opposite
their lives
together
sex couples
plan their futures together
same sex couples support one another
and take care of one another physical
ly
when
faced
with injury or
illness
xx
Plaintiffs
able as opposite
Page 9
and other same sex couples wanting to marry are
sex couples to assume
COMPLAINT
the obligations
of marriage
just
as willing and
xx
no
benefit
that
Plaintiffs
less
and
sex couples from the
than opposite
many
if
permitted to marry would
protections
legal
and
social
recognition
marriage affords
xx
The
federal protections
exclusion
afforded
immigration and citizenship
from marriage denies them
of Plaintiffs
to married couples including
and
taxes
social
legally
both
On
September 23
the Multnomah
of the federal protections
for
reside in states where their marriages are
2013
County Clerk
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
applied for a marriage license from Defendant
were denied a marriage
license
because they are
women
xx
Plaintiffs
serious relationship
direct
for numerous
recognized
xx
XXX
eligibility
but not limited to the areas of
Some
security
who
married couples are only available to couples
result
xx
Oregon
other same sex couples in
of Defendants
Plaintiffs
Ginsberg termed
sex residents of Oregon
and desire to marry one another
enforcement
of
status
Or Const
a contemporary
institution
physical
As
a result
COMPLAINT
and
are involved
15
the Plaintiffs
their
humiliation
institution
of
stigma
term
from doing so as a
marriage and relegated to
that Justice
States v
by sending the message
than opposite
societal
a long
and unequal construct
Windsor
significant
This
that Plaintiffs
sex couples
extended families suffer
and
in
5a
during oral argument on United
stigmatizes
Plaintiffs
and economic harms
Page 10
Art
separate
are less worthy of having access to their civil rights
xx
who
They are prohibited
are excluded from the esteemed
skim milk marriage
and unequal
separate
are same
emotional
xx
heterosexual
laws against
5a and
and
all
Oregon
to the United
Plaintiffs
to enforce
of their constitutional
The
States Constitution
state
these unconstitutional
rights
declaratory
and
under the
injunctive
forms for the application
them to issue same sex couples a marriage
also will require Defendants to recognize
marriage to
the license to marry
of registry of marriage including
require
will
statutes restricting
Defendants will continue
require Defendants to revise the official
the certificate
certificate
15
thereby depriving
Plaintiffs
seek
to marry
Art
couples are not enjoined
Amendment
Fourteenth
Plaintiffs
Or Const
If
same sex marriage as
relief
for license
and the marriage
license
The
relief
sought
within the State of Oregon
valid
xx
Plaintiffs
incorporate
supra
as
fully
if
set
forth herein
XX
Due
Or Const
Process Clause
both on
Or Const
xx
lesbian individuals
Art
the
15
its
Art
5a
violates
fundamental
15
5a
impinges on fundamental
same opportunities
to marry civilly
gay and lesbian couples the designation of
unequal and differently
stigmatizing gays and lesbians
dignity
respect
COMPLAINT
named
marriage
officially
liberties
and enter into
are protected
by
the
by denying gay and
officially
sanctioned
For example
sex individuals
by denying
and instead allowing them access only to
as well as their children
CLAIM
Page 11
that
family relationships with their loved ones as opposite
the separate
liberties
and
recognized
families
opposite
relationship
the State
is
and denying them the same
sex married couples
40
incorporate
Plaintiffs
supra
as
if
fully
set
forth herein
Or Const
41
describing
individuals
in
42
describing
5a and any Oregon
a marriage
only as
Amendment
Or Const
Art
husband
and
only
15
Art
15
husband
both on
its
restrict
without legal justification
differently
wife
violate
civil
by providing
statutes referring
to marriage and
are therefore unable to marry one another
Plaintiffs
and
5a and any Oregon
wife
to marriage and
statutes referring
Oregon law
civil
treats
of the opposite sex
similarly
situated
people
marriage to heterosexual couples bu
not
to gay and lesbian couples
Xx
unpopular
36
The
group
resulting
Or Const
The measure was
Multnomah
damage to
placed
and Benton
15
Art
Plaintiffs
stems from public disapproval
5a was placed
on the ballot
in
Counties after their respective County Commissions
By amending Oregon
from recognizing
xx
heterosexuals violate
These
legal
the Plaintiffs
Or Const
provisions
Art
constitution
rights
15
5a and
distinguish
COMPLAINT
all
2004 as Measure
interpreted
a majority of voters could
state statutes
the
sex
prevent the state courts
under the law
Clause because they discriminate
on the
of the same sex
in
to same
the issuing of marriage licenses
to marry and to equal protection
couples consisting of individuals
Page 12
ballot in
response to same sex marriages performed
Oregon Constitution and Oregon law as authorizing
couples
on the Oregon
of a politically
marriage to
basis
woman
and
of sex
CLAIM THREE
xx
fully
Plaintiffs
VIOLATION
Insofar
incorporate
and
depriving
Amendment
marriage to husband
statutes that limit
continue
will
to the United
the terms of
xx
Plaintiffs
are
statutes that
Art
15
as
if
5a and Oregon
incorporate
Plaintiffs
now
limit
and Equal Protection
are
by the Fourteenth
1983
INJURY
injuries will
xx
An
marriage to husband
and wife
Fourteenth
and wife
be redressed only
th
if
this
supra
as
if
Amendment
the
Due
the
5a and
Due
Process
States Constitution
Court declares these laws unconstitutional
Art
15
controversy
exists
5a and Oregon
between
Plaintiff
statutes that
Process Clause and the Equal Protection
Defendants are enforcing
COMPLAINT
15
laws violate
to the United
limit
C lause
these state laws to Plaintiff
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Page 13
state
Art
and
em
whether Or Const
violate
These
Amendment
by Or Const
severely and irreparably injured
enjoins Defendants from enforcing
husband
supra
forth herein
48
Oregon
Plaintiffs
Or Const
and wife Defendants
IRREPARABLE
set
1983
forth herein
set
xx
fully
OF 42 U S C
and
marriage to
of the
detriment
WHEREFORE
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
pray for judgment
respectfully
Or Const
Art
unconstitutional
15
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
42
Page 14
US C
respectfully
1988
USC
2201
marriage to husband
stating
that
of
Or Const
Art
request costs of suit
all
and wife as
laws that bar or in any
States Constitution and 42
to the United
construe
Process and Equal Protection Clauses of
15
5a and Oregon
and wife or bar same sex marriage
and
COMPLAINT
Due
to 28
request that this Court enter a permanent injunction
or application
marriage to husband
judgment
sex marriage violate
Amendment
pursuant
statutes that limit
and enter a declaratory
respectfully
enforcement
request that this Court
5a and Oregon
way impeded same
the Fourteenth
as follows
including
in
1983
enjoining
statutes that limit
any manner
fees under
DATED
LAW WORKS
LLC
By
Lake James
Perriguey
and
LAW
OFFICE OF
SAGE
TETON LLC
Sage Teton
and
DORSAY EASTON LLP

Lea Ann Easton
GEIGER
Page 15
COMPLAINT
and
JANINE
DEANNA L
NELSON
Page 1
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
10 1 2013 2 36 45
Subject
RE
Thanks
Lake
Keep
Eugene
Division
the
under
the
Discriminatory
Eugene
Governor
and
Local
PM
Legal Challenge
us posted
for a suit against
Williams Mary
strikes
the
Rules
Provision of Or Constitution
me as an equally appropriate
AG
Marion
and
it
County
s not
at
disputes
all
venue
as Portland
are properly
uncommon
for the
heard
State
to
in the
be sued
there
From
Lake
Sent
Sunday
To
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
Dear
Sheila
Legal
Sheila
and
is
children
draft
clients
It
is
like
My
know
works
com
Discriminatory
draft
hope
anticipates
in all
to
law
2 39 PM
Williams Mary
an updated
live
lake
2013
Provision of
Or Constitution
Mary
who
This
Challenge
Attached
have
mailto
September 29
the
the
lawsuit
file
we
within
in Portland
state
interest
State
the
to
a filing
in Portland
parties
of
is
to
s position
officials
advance
the
with regard
plan
the
we
to
next
file
We
are considering
act
case
may add
throughout
the
filing
plaintiffs
venue
and
in Eugene
Though
our
state
expeditiously
federal
additional
10 days
With
this in mind
to
a possible filing
If
you are not
would
in
Eugene
James H
Lake
Law
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
97205
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
10 15 2013 3 47 26
Subject
Complaint
Notice
Sheila
This communication
information intended
intended
recipient
for
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
avoiding
this
notified
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
and
is strictly
we
any attachments
party
is
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
privileged or confidential
protected
and or shred the materials a nd any
not intended
penalties under the Internal Revenue
to another
contain
any disclosure copying or
IRS regulations
including
recommending
any attachments
individual
or the taking of any action based on
Notice 2
PM
including
specific
and are hereby
attachments
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
Sheila
Attached
is
a copy of the complaint
Attorney General Rosenblum
ve cc d
this
email to Lake Perriguey
Lea Ann Easton
Dorsay Easton LLP

Suite 440
Portland
filed
SW
OR
503 790 9060
Columbia
97258
today in the federal district
court in
Euge ne
along with the other defendants waive formal service of
co counsel
We
will
summons
be requesting
that
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
10 15 2013 3 49 13
Subject
RE
Attachments
2013 10 15 Dkt
Notice
Sheila
intended
recipient
for
1 PLD Complaint pdf
including
specific
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
recommending
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
and
we
any attachments
party
is
protected
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
not intended
to another
contain
is strictly
IRS regulations
including
avoiding
this
notified
Notice 2
any attachments
individual
you should delete
and are hereby
attachments
PM
Complaint with attachment
This communication
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
Sheila
Attached
is
ve cc d
this
Lea Ann Easton
Dorsay Easton LLP

Suite 440
Portland
filed
SW
OR
503 790 9060
Columbia
97258
court in
Euge ne
co counsel
We
will
summons
be requesting
that
Case
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Lake James
H Perriguey
Document 1
OSB
No
Filed
10 15 13
Page
1 of 12
Page
ID
983213
lake law works com
LAW WORKS LLC

OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 227 1928
Telephone
503 334 2340
Facsimile
Lea
Ann
Easton
OSB No
881413
leaston dorsayindianlaw com
DORSAY
1
SW
EASTON
LLP
Columbia Street Suite 440
Portland
OR
97204
503 790 9060
Telephone
503 790 9068
Facsimile

DISTRICT
OF OREGON
EUGENE
DEANNA L GEIGER and JANINE

NELSON ROBERT DUEHMIG and
DIVISION
Case
No
WILLIAM GRIESAR
INJUNCTIVE OR OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiffs
v
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
of
Oregon
ROSENBLUM
his official
capacity
Oregon Health Authority
and
capacity
Defendants
COMPLAINT
as
Statistics
RANDY
in his official capacity
Multnomah County Assessor
Page 1
as
Oregon JENNIFER
in her official
State Registrar Center for Health
WALDRUFF
capacity
ELLEN
in her official
Attorney General of
WOODWARD
in
as
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Case
Plaintiffs
Deanna
Document 1
Geiger and Janine
Filed
10 15 13
Nelson and
Robert
Page
Page
2 of 12
Duehmig and William
ID
Griesar
complain of Defendants and allege
INTRODUCTION
Oregons
Constitution states
It is the policy of
subdivisions that only a marriage between one
recognized
as a marriage.
lesbian Oregonians
who
Or Const
were married
Art 15
man
5a
This domestic
ORS
106.300 106.340
people denies them the fundamental
Amendment
3
Or
be valid or legally
want
to
This provision also
marry in Oregon
law extends
to
institution
of
same sex
lesbian and gay couples only
For these reasons
Const Art 15
4
seeking
Page 2
guaranteed by the Fourteenth
5a and
Plaintiffs
Process
all
Plaintiffs
enjoin all enforcement
other Oregon statutes that exclude gay and lesbian people from
marriage
1 a declaration
Due
liberties
Oregons
who
to the United States Constitution
equal access to civil
the
political
This provision discriminates against gay and
who
partnership
its
marry one another
of
shall
Oregon statutory law includes the separate and unequal
some
woman
in other jurisdictions
legally
discriminates against gay and lesbian Oregonians
and one
Oregon and
are same sex couples
that
who
bring this action
Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a
Clause and under the Equal Protection
COMPLAINT
pursuant to 42
is
U SC
unconstitutional
1983
under
Amendment
to
Case
6 13 cv 01834 MC
the United
States Constitution because
marry under
same sex
Document 1
state
and
law and
Plaintiffs
also seek
1 a declaration
Plaintiffs
that
Due
to
man
and a
Plaintiffs
Page 3
bring this lawsuit
constitutional
and
2a
same
legal
Plaintiffs
recognition
of their
seek access
all
of the
Oregon Constitution Section 5
couples
pursuant
to
42
U SC
1983 to enforce
their
rights and liberties that the United States Constitution ensures for all
also seek recovery
relief
same sex
woman
to husband
seek equal access to marriage and the
Article 15 prohibits marriage between
and for any other
this
refer
the United States Constitution
federal benefits and obligations that they are denied because
Plaintiffs
union that the State of Oregon extends to opposite sex couples
people
ID
of marriages between people of the
Oregon statutes which
marriage to only a
restrict
permanent injunction preventing
fundamental
Page
injunction preventing
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
3 of 12
denies gay and lesbian people the equal opportunity to
Page
Constitution
and wife, and by implication
Protection
10 15 13
denies equal state recognition
2 a permanent
provision of Oregons
it
it
Filed
the Court
COMPLAINT
of their attorneys
may order
fees costs and expenses for
this
action
Case
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Document 1
JURISDICTION
U SC
This case raises questions
1983
This Court has
10 15 13
Filed
Page
AND VENUE
States and 42
under the Constitution of the United
jurisdiction
ID
Page
4 of 12
over all claims for relief pursuant to 28
U SC
1331 and 1343
Venue
is
and Kitzhaber maintain
Rosenblum
proper in this district
and are continuing
official
U SC
offices in Marion
1391 b
County Oregon
because a substantial part of the events giving
to occur
because Defendants
rise to
Venue
is
also
the claims occurred
in this district
THE PARTIES
10
Plaintiffs
Deanna
committed relationship for 31 years
County Oregon
11
Canada
in
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
2003
want
to
Plaintiffs
women who
are residents of Oregon and reside in
marry one another
in
are parents of two teenagers
residents of Oregon and reside in
Plaintiffs
Multnomah County Oregon
men who
and
officially
couples
who
marriage under Oregon
capacity the Governor
is
children are
Duehmig and
treat
in
Griesar
them the same as
is
law
the Governor
the chief executive
officer
of the State of
of the State of
responsibility to ensure that the States laws are enforced
Page 4
were married
are Oregon citizens married under the laws of other jurisdictions and
sanction Plaintiffs
12
their
Plaintiffs
are citizens of Oregon and desire to have the State of Oregon officially
heterosexual
Multnomah
Oregon
Robert Duehmig and William Griesar are
Plaintiffs
have been in a
COMPLAINT
fairly
Oregon
Oregon
It
In his official
is
his
uniformly and constitutionally
Case
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Defendant Kitzhaber
Document 1
Filed
10 15 13
a person within the meaning of 42
is
Page
U SC
Page
5 of 12
ID
1983 and was acting under
color of state law at all times relevant to this complaint
13
her official
capacity
is
the Attorney General of the State of
the Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the State of
her duty to ensure the States laws are enforced
Defendant Rosenblum
is
Oregon
Oregon
In
It
is
fairly
a person within the meaning
U SC
of 42
14
Defendant Jennifer Woodward
of the Center for Health
Statistics
is
the State Registrar
marriages along with births and deaths in the vital
Defendant Woodward
is
statistic
It
is
of Oregon and is the manager
her duty to record all
records for the State of
U SC
Oregon
15
Waldruff
in
is
Defendant Randy Waldruff
responsible
for maintaining vital
responsible
Defendants
The
relief
against each Defendants
cooperation
Page 5
state
law
COMPLAINT
is
times relevant
at all
their
to this
of 42
U SC
complaint
supervision direction
and control are
of Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a and all Oregon
officers
with Defendant
Multnomah County Randy
records of marriages and issuing marriage licenses
for the enforcement
marriage statutes
the County Assessor for
Defendant Waldruff
1983 and was acting under color of
16
is
is
employees and agents and against
s under
their
all
supervision at their direction
as well as
persons acting in
Case
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Document 1
Filed
10 15 13
Page
Page
6 of 12
ID
FACTS
17
same sex
The Oregon Family Fairness
many but
couples
18
that
legislative
t his
including the families of
should be provided
to
106.300 106.340
These laws provide
to
state
findings supporting the adoption
of the Act at
same sex
couples and their children and that
Oregon families
ll
with the opportunity to obtain necessary legal protections
In addition
To
and
106.150
to creating a separate
include a provision that
17 yearolds
its
Domestic
partnerships
ORS
106.325
the possibility of divorce
apply for a marriage license
Page 6
ways
ORS
COMPLAINT
106.325
Oregons
marriage statutes
ORS
can marry with parental consent
in
front of two witnesses
ORS
106.010
106.010
require no solemnization
Applicants for a domestic
very inception
anticipate
and the
and unequal legal framework the Acts
courts requiring the parties to consider
at
status
qualify for a domestic partnership both individuals seeking to enter into a
106.305
provisions differ from the provisions in Oregon marriage statutes in the following
however
ORS
achieve their fullest potential.
19
samesex
of the benefits and obligations of marriage
not all
Oregons
4 acknowledge
ability
ORS
domestic partnerships.
Act created a separate and unequal institution of
partnership
must consent
to jurisdiction
of the Oregon
the possibility of a future dissolution of their partnership
State law does not force opposite sex couples to
jurisdiction
at
the time they
Case
6 13 cv 01834 MC
ORS
106.041
Document 1
4 provides
that
statement Neither you nor your spouse
Oregon affirm your
free from violence
Filed
is
and abuse.
There
same
no similar requirement
is
goals and
dreams
The laws
of the State of
time to live within the marriage
for
same sex
couples applying
laws
Exclusion from marriage by Oregon law undermines
achieve their life
ID
Page
7 of 12
enter into marriage and at the
right to
Page
for recognition under the domestic partnership
20
10 15 13
the Plaintiffs
abilities
to
stability and denies them
secondclass
equal dignity and status
and
Plaintiffs
their
children
are stigmatized and relegated to
citizens
21
to
Plaintiffs
Same sex
marriage
are identical
couples
make
couples Like different sex couples
their
to
opposite sex couples
in all
relevant
the same commitment to one another as different sex
same sex
couples fall
futures together and hope to grow old together
in
love build
their lives
Like different sex couples
together plan
same sex
couples support one another emotionally and financially and take care of one another physically
when
faced with injury or illness
children
like
emotional
families
different sex couples
romantic
Oregons
of the federal
dignitary
Plaintiffs
reasons
same
ability
to raise and nurture
seek equal access to marriage for the same
and
to
provide
the
discriminatory marriage laws bar
same
same sex
benefits protections and obligations accessible
couples under federal
Page 7
and
sex couples seek the
legal
shelter
to
their
as different sex spouses
22
many
Same
law
COMPLAINT
couples from equal access to
to heterosexual married
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Case
23
in
Document 1
Duehmig and
Plaintiffs
BC on December
Vancouver
Defendants refuse
to
because they are both
recognize
men
Plaintiffs
marriage license and desire to have
10 15 13
Despite
Page
8 of 12
who were
ID
married
legally
the fact that they are legally married the
Duehmig and
Duehmig and
Page
of Oregon
Griesar are citizens
29 2003
Plaintiffs
Filed
Griesar as a legally
married couple
Griesar want Defendants
the State of Oregon and
to
Multnomah County
accept
their
officially
treat
them the same as heterosexual couples who are Oregon citizens married under the laws of other
jurisdictions
and
24
license in
officially
On
sanction Plaintiffs
law
23 2013
Plaintiffs
Geiger and Nelson applied for a marriage
Plaintiffs
were denied a marriage license by the
September
Multnomah County
25
and
Plaintiffs
harms
economic
Clerk because
their
they are both
women
extended families suffer significant emotional physical and
humiliation and societal stigma caused
by Oregons
refusal
to allow
same
sex
couples equal access to marriage
26
If
unconstitutional
Oregon
to
The
couples are not enjoined
and
Amendment
declaratory
Oregon
Plaintiffs
same sex
recognize
all
Defendants will continue to enforce these
laws against Plaintiffs thereby depriving
under the Fourteenth
Defendants
5a
Oregon Constitution Article 15
of their constitutional rights
The
relief
sought requires
marriage as valid as a matter of federal law within the State of
and injunctive
relief
Plaintiffs
seek requires Defendants
to
revise the
samesex
official
state
forms for the application for license
including the license to
marry and
couples a marriage license
Page 8
COMPLAINT
to
marry the
the marriage certificate
certificate
of registry of marriage
and will require them
to
issue
Case
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Document 1
10 15 13
Filed
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF CLAIM
27
set
Plaintiffs
incorporate
Page
ID
Page
9 of 12
ONE DUE PROCESS
30
supra as
if
fully
forth herein
28
Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a deprives
liberties that
are protected
by the Due Process Clause both on
its
Plaintiffs
fundamental
face and as applied to
Plaintiffs
29
liberties
by denying gay and lesbian individuals the
officially
with their loved
sanctioned family relationships
Oregon stigmatizes gays lesbians
dignity respect
and
stature
their
afforded
children
officially
denying gay and lesbian couples equal access
30
Insofar
and Oregon
state
law
statutes that limit
Amendment
forth
Plaintiffs
incorporate
herein
Page 9
their
recognized
to
choose
who
to
COMPLAINT
fundamental
marry and enter into
ones as opposite sex individuals
families by denying
them the same
opposite sex married couples by
marriage
the terms of Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a
to deprive
wife Defendants
Plaintiffs
acting
TWO
under color of
of numerous rights secured by the
to the United States Constitution in violation of 42
CLAIM
31
and
marriage to husband and
are depriving and will continue
Fourteenth
right to
Plaintiffs
U SC
1983
EQUAL PROTECTION
30
supra as
if
fully
set
Case
6 13 cv 01834 MC
32
Document 1
Filed
10 15 13
Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a and
marriage and describing
Page 10
all
Oregon
individuals in a marriage only as husband
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both on
its
ID
Page
12
of
statutes
10
referring to
and wife violate the
Plaintiffs
33
marriage and describing
opposite
sex
Plaintiffs
only husband
are therefore
situated people differently
and wife
restrict
all
civil
Oregon
statutes
referring to
marriage to individuals of the
unable to marry one another
Oregon law
without legal justification by providing civil
treats
similarly
couples but not to gay and lesbian couples
34
limit
marriage to heterosexuals violate the Equal Protection
the basis of
woman
sex
Insofar
5a and Oregon
of state
law
of individuals of the
statutes that limit
Clause because
to the extent they
they discriminate on
Amendment
to
of a
man
and a
same sex
the terms of Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section
marriage to husband and wife Defendants
the Fourteenth
statutes
These legal provisions distinguish between couples consisting
and couples consisting
35
all state
to deprive
Plaintiffs
acting under color
of numerous
rights
the United States Constitution in violation of 42
secured by
U SC
1983
IRREPARABLE INJURY
36
set
Plaintiffs
incorporate
forth herein
Page 10
COMPLAINT
30
supra as
if
fully
Case
6 13 cv 01834 MC
37
Plaintiffs
Document 1
now
are
15 Section 5a and by Oregon
Due
violate the
laws unconstitutional
An
10 15 13
statutes that limit
Plaintiffs
and
of
injuries will
be redressed only
judicially
cognizable
if
Amendment
this
to
marriage to husband and wife violate the
enforcing
11
them
controversy
these state laws to Plaintiffs
to
the United
Due
the
Court declares these
exists
between
Plaintiffs
Defendants regarding whether Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a and Oregon
that limit
ID
Page
12
marriage to husband and wife These state laws
and enjoins Defendants from enforcing
actual
Page 11
severely and irreparably injured by Oregon Constitution Article
United States Constitution
38
Filed
Process
and
statutes
Clause and the Equal Protection
States Constitution
Defendants are currently
detriment
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
request judgment
as follows
respectfully request that this Court pursuant to 28
Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a and Oregon
husband and wife as unconstitutional
laws
that
Protection
and 42
bar or in any
U SC
Plaintiffs
to
the United
Due
construe
marriage to
stating
that
Process and Equal
States
Constitution
1983
respectfully request that this Court enter a permanent
enforcement
Page 11
judgment
marriage violate
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
2201
statutes that limit
and enter a declaratory
way impede samesex
USC
or application
COMPLAINT
injunction enjoining
of Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a and Oregon
Case
6 13 cv 01834 MC
statutes that limit
Document 1
Filed
10 15 13
Page 12
marriage to husband and wife or bar
of
same sex
Page
12
ID
12
marriage in any
manner
Plaintiffs
respectfully request that Defendants
sex couples and record
Plaintiffs
42
U SC
this 15th
same
sex marriage licenses within the Vital Statistic
Oregon
fees under
respectfully request costs of suit including reasonable attorneys
1988 and
Such other
DATED
and Waldruff accept
for marriage licenses from same sex couples grant marriage licenses to
applicants
same
Woodward
relief
all
further relief
as the Court
deems
to
which they are entitled and
appropriate
day of October 2013
By s
Lake James
Lake James
H Perriguey
H Perriguey
OSB
No
LAW WORKS LLC

Portland OR 97205 1718
503 227 1928
Telephone
Facsimile
503 334 2340
lake law works com

By s
Ann Easton
Ann Easton OSB
Lea
Lea
DORSAY
1
SW
No
EASTON
881413
LLP
Portland
OR
Telephone
Facsimile
97204
503 790 9060

503 790 9068
Page 12
COMPLAINT
983213
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
10 16 2013 11 55 48
Subject
Re
Thank you
I
get it
filed
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Sheila
AM
m out this week but will rustle

when I m back in next week
up the
form to
use in waiving
service
and
will
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Oct 15
LEaston
Notice
2013
of
at
Justice
4 49 PM
dorsayindianlaw
This
Lea
Ann
com mailto
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
privileged
is
protected
this communication
notified
taking
com
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
in this communication
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Sheila
Attached
is
a copy
of
the
complaint
will be requesting that Attorney

formal service of summons
I
ve
Lea
cc
Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
790
2013
to
Lake
Perriguey
Easton
440
Portland
503
d this email
1 SW
OR
LLP
Columbia
97258
9060
10 15 Dkt
1 PLD
filed
General
Complaint pdf
today
in the
Rosenblum
co
counsel
federal
along
district
with the
other
court
in Eugene
defendants
waive
We
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
10 16 2013 11 56 59
Subject
RE
We
Sheila
H
AM
sending copies of forms to each plain per local rules so should
just
send
it
irectly
to you for both the
AG and
State
Registrar
Thanks
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Lake
Re
Thank you
m out
this
Deputy
and
service
will
get
it
filed
when
m back
Chief Counsel
Division
Oct 15 2013
LEaston
4 49
at
PM
dorsayindianlaw
for a specific individual
communication
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
including
and purpose
and
is
avoiding
with
including
penalties
any transaction
may
protected
by law
wrote
contain privileged
If
you are not the
or conf
in
idential
IRS
regulations
any attachments
under the
is
Revenue
Internal
or matter addressed
we
or the taking
of any action based on
inform you that any
not intended to be used
Code
or
ii
promoting
it
fied that
is
strictly
federal tax advice
you should delete
any disclosure
prohibited
contained in this
and cannot be u sed

marketing
tended recipient
and or shred the materials and any attachments and are hereby noti
To comply
communication
com
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
or distribution of this communication
copying
Notice
Justice
This communication
Notice
this
but will rustle up the form to use in waiving
Potter
Oregon Department of
On
week
week
next
Trial
doj state or us
potter
16 2013 11 56 AM
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
mailto sheila
October
To
in
Sheila
Wednesday
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
Sheila
Attached
is
ve cc d
this
Lea Ann Easton
Dorsay
filed
Easton
LLP
court in
Euge ne We
along with the other defendants waive formal service of su
co counsel
will
be requesting
mmons
that
Suite 440
Portland
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
2013 10 15 Dkt
PLD
Complaint pdf
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
10 16 2013 12 11 07
Subject
Re
Perfect
Sheila
PM
yes please
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Oct 16
LEaston
2013
of
at
Justice
12 57 PM
dorsayindianlaw
We
sending
to
you for both
copies
of
the
Lea
Ann
com mailto
forms to
AG and
each
State
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
plaintiff
per local
com
wrote
rules so should I
just send
it
directly
Registrar
Thanks
Ann
Lea
From
Potter
Sent
Wednesday
To
Lea
Cc
Lake
Ann
get
mailto
16
sheila
2013
potter
doj state
or us
11 56 AM
Easton
Re
you
it
October
Perriguey
Subject
Thank
Sheila

I
m out
filed
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
when
this week
I
m back
but
will
in next
rustle
up the
form to
use in waiving
service
and
will
week
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Oct 15
LEaston
mailto
2013
at
Justice
4 49 PM
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
Notice
of
This
Lea
Ann
com mailto
dorsayindianlaw
communication
com
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
dorsayindianlaw
mailto
including
information
the
Easton
LEaston
LEaston
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
that
of
com 3e 3e
privileged
is
protected
this communication
notified
taking
com
dorsayindianlaw
and
based
or confidential
by law
or shred
any disclosure
any action
wrote
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Sheila
Attached
will
is
a copy
be requesting
formal service
I
ve
cc
of
of
the
that
complaint
Attorney
filed
General
today
in the
Rosenblum
summons
d this email
to
Lake
Perriguey
co
counsel
federal
along
district
with the
other
court
in Eugene
defendants
waive
We
Lea
Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
Portland
503
790
2013
LLP
Easton
440
1 SW
OR
Columbia
97258
9060
10 15 Dkt
1 PLD
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
Complaint pdf
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Pellegrini
CC
Potter
Sent
10 17 2013 12 03 00
Subject
Re
Cheryl
Sheila
H
PM
waiver of service
summons
of
Cheryl
We
have mailed a copy of the complaint
and waiver form to Sheila Potter
Thank you for your response to and professional courtesies
in this
matter
Regards
Lea Ann
On
Oct 17 2013
LeaAnn
d
at
Aorney
The
Please send
le er
and waiver
Please give
me
AM
11 58
me
to
a leer
if
Cheryl
cheryl pellegrini
doj state or us
wrote
General will waive service of the complaint and summons as provided in
me in
a call
Pellegrini
and waiver forms and
them
will return
to
you
You
can scan
FRCP
and send
the
electronic format
you have any
questions
Regards
Cheryl Pellegrini
From
Sent
To
Chief Counsel
Lea Ann Easton

Tuesday
Pellegrini
1162 Court St
NE
Salem
OR
ph 503 947 4700
97310
cell
503 932 3704
com
dorsayindianlaw
15 2013 3 50 PM
Cheryl
FW
Subject
Division
LEaston
mailto
October
Trial
Cheryl
understand
today
in
Sheila Potter is out of the office
the federal district
court in
this
week
Please see
my email
below
regarding the complaint
filed
Eugene
Lea Ann Easton
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton

Tuesday
October
To
sheila potter
Cc
Lake
15 2013 3 49 PM
doj state or us
Perriguey
Subject
RE Complaint with attachment
Notice
This communication
intended
recipient
attachments
for
including
specific
you should delete
and are hereby
To comply
communication
with
including
this
notified
Notice 2
any attachments
individual
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
and
contain
is
IRS regulations
any attachments
we
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
by law
is strictly
protected
not intended
to
US
be used
federal tax advice
and cannot be
contained
used
in this
for the
purpose
of
avoiding
recommending
to another
party
any transaction
Code
or
or matter addressed
ii
promoting marketing
or
herein
Sheila
Attached
is
ve cc d
filed
this
court in
We
Euge ne
will
be requesting
that
summons
co counsel
Lea Ann Easton
Dorsay Easton LLP

Suite 440
Portland
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
VON TER STEGGE

H
2013 12 56 49 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
10 21
Subject
Geiger same sex marriage lawsuit
Sheila
Sheila
m working
on
this
case for the County
any time Tuesday or Thursday of
this
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
Assistant County Attorney
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
Multnomah
500
503 988 3377
multco us
County Attorney
Portland
fax
OR
97214
We
week
should probably
chat soon about our respective
strategies
Do
you have
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
10 21 2013 3 50 47
Subject
Geiger v Kitzhaber
Sheila
H
PM
Dear Sheila
understand you are just returning from time
Are you
available
discovery
Each day
Oregon
to meet this
week
away from
the office
Welcome back
to discuss this case in anticipation
of a Rule 16
scheduling
conference
and case planning
that
Bob and
Bill
and
their
children
and Deanna
while they witness similarly situated citizens in
unconstitutional
government
direction
and intervention
and Janine are denied equal
NJ
CA WA NY
and other
the damage to them and their
access to marriage by
states
marry without
families
is
greater and more
palpable
While
my
rights
to those citizens married out of state
http
www
clients
are elated by the
law works com
movement toward
we
equality
would
like
to
effected by the recent de
move
cision
to extend
the case along straightaway
some
equal
From
Potter
To
Sent
10 22
Subject
RE
Yes
I
am meeting
m fully
the
to
H
VON TER STEGGE
2013 9 53 42 AM
Sheila
Katharine
with internal
briefed
middle of
work
folks
on our strategies
the
together
day
Will
when
later today
how
be so nice
you were
and
should do those
s your Thursday
to
work
meetings
am generally
with you on this
since
we
open
never
first
except
had
so that
around
occasion
here
Sheila
From
Katharine
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
VON TER
October
Sheila
STEGGE
21
mailto
2013
katevts
multco us
12 57 PM
Geiger same
sex marriage lawsuit
Sheila
I
m working
strategies
on this case
Do
you have
for the
County
any time Tuesday
We
should probably
or Thursday
of
chat
soon
this week
Thanks
Kate
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
503
988
katevts
Stegge
County
Attorney
Hawthorne
3138
mailto
Suite
503
988
katevts
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
County
OR
Attorney
97214
fax
multnomah or us multco us http
multco us
about
our respective
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
10 22 2013 10 05 40
Subject
RE
am indeed
Lea
Today
AM
Geiger v Kitzhaber
and
tomorrow
are all
jammed up
but
how
are Thursday
or Friday for you and
Ann
Sheila
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
Dear
I
Perriguey
Sheila
Each
you are just returning

to
meet
conference
day that
Bob
other
states
them
While
and
Bill
works
com
Lake
1906
SW
503
503
to
discuss
case
their children
they
witness
greater and
by the
those
this case
and
toward
married
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
law
skype
lagojaime
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
PRINT
503
www
law
Justice
CONSERVE
RESOURCES
Welcome
in anticipation
of
back
a Rule
16
and
Janine are denied
works
citizens
direction
and
in NJ
equal
CA
intervention
access
WA
NY
the
damage
and
palpable
Street
Oregon
Deanna
government
Perriguey
Madison
office
similarly situated
more
movement
citizens
from the
planning
LLC
Portland
T
rights
to
and
straightaway
James H
Works
are elated
equal
from time away
unconstitutional
their families is
some
along
and
while
marry without
my clients
extend
case
and
this week
discovery
marriage by Oregon
OTLA
law
3 51 PM
Sheila
scheduling
Law
lake
2013
Kitzhaber
Are you available
to
21
Geiger v
understand
to
mailto
October
com
equality
out
of
effected
state
we
by the
would
recent
like
to
decision
move
the
to
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
10 22 2013 10 44 07
Subject
Re
Sheila
H
AM
Geiger v Kitzhaber
Sheila
would
to meet with you in person
like
Lake James
if
that
works for you
in
Portland
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
lake
please notify
e mail and
this
all
copies
and attachments
On
Oct 22 2013
am indeed
at
10 05
AM
Potter Sheila
Today and tomorrow are
all
sheila
potter
jammed up
but
doj state or us
how
wrote
are Thursday
or Friday for
you and Lea
Ann
Sheila
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Monday
Potter
Subject
mailto lake
October 21
Sheila
com
law works
2013 3 51 PM
Geiger v Kitzhaber
Dear Sheila
understand you are just returning from time
Are you
available
discovery
Each day
Oregon
to meet this
week
away from
the office
Welcome back
to discuss this case in anticipation
of a Rule 16
scheduling
conference
and case planning
that
Bob and
Bill
and
their
children
and Deanna
while they witness similarly situated citizens in
government
unconstitutional
direction
and intervention
and Janine are denied equal
NJ
CA WA NY
and other
the damage to them and their
access to marriage by
states
marry without
families
is
greater and more
palpable
While
my
rights
to those citizens married out of state
clients
Lake James
are elated by the
Perriguey
movement toward
we
equality
would
like
to
effected by the recent de
move
cision
to extend
the case along straightaway
some
equal
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
CONSERVE RESOURCES
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
10 22 2013 10 56 32
Subject
RE
Sure
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
m in Portland
Potter
Subject
both
Perriguey
days
mailto
October
Sheila
Re
AM
Geiger v Kitzhaber
22
lake
2013
law
works
com
10 44 AM
Geiger v
Kitzhaber
Sheila
I
would
Lake
Law
like
to
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
com http
Civil
for you
in Portland
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
2013
potter
am indeed
www
at
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
the
law
and
or privileged
sender
works
10 05 AM
doj state
Today
law
Justice
please notify
Oct 22
Lea
of
com mailto
sheila
works
e mail may contain
recipient
On
works
97205
227
skype
works
that
Street
Oregon
www
This
if
Perriguey
http
OTLA
with you in person
LLC
Portland
T
meet
immediately
com
and
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
tomorrow
delete
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
the
to
and
intended
lake
law
attachments
sheila
are all
information
by return
potter
jammed up
doj state
but
or us
wrote
how
are Thursday
law
works
or Friday for you and
Ann
Sheila
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
Dear
I
Perriguey
Sheila
Geiger v
scheduling
Each
states
them
While
Bob
to
meet
and
1906
and
Bill
SW
are elated
equal
com http
rights
to
from time away

to
and
discuss
case
com
their children
they
witness
unconstitutional
greater and
by the
those
this case
and
x apple
data
Welcome
in anticipation
of
back
a Rule
16
and
Janine are denied
toward
married
detectors
citizens
direction
and
in NJ
equal
CA
intervention
access
WA
NY
the
damage
and
palpable
Perriguey
Street
Deanna
government
LLC
Madison
office
similarly situated
more
movement
citizens
from the
planning
straightaway
James H
Works
and
while
their families is
some
along
this week
discovery
marry without
my clients
extend
Law
works
Kitzhaber
conference
day that
other
Lake
law
3 51 PM
marriage by Oregon
case
lake
2013
you are just returning
Are you available
to
21
Sheila
understand
to
mailto
October
0 0
equality
out
of
effected
state
we
by the
would
recent
like
to
decision
move
the
to
Portland
T
503
503
Oregon
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
97205
227
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
This
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
1928
503
20334
2340
keep
law
works
com
Justice
RESOURCES
information
applicable
that
www
0 0
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
detectors
20227
CONSERVE
CONFIDENTIALITY
data
503
com http
Civil
PRINT
x apple
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
10 22 2013 1 37 18
Subject
Meeting
Lea Ann and
http
www
would
like
Sheila
H
PM
Friday
to meet with you on Friday at 2
law works com
PM
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
10 22 2013 1 55 32
Subject
RE
Works
for me
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Lea
Law
Sheila
and
Works
SW
503
503
22
lake
2013
law
works
here
com
1 37 PM
like
to
meet
with you on Friday at
LLC
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
mailto
room
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
T
us a conference
Friday
would
James H
1906
get
October
Meeting
Ann
Lake
ll
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
PM
Meeting Friday
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
PRINT
503
www
law
Justice
CONSERVE
RESOURCES
works
com
2 PM
From
To
Potter
Sent
10 22 2013 1 59 02
Subject
Re
Confirmed
Do
Lake James
Sheila
Meeting
H
PM
Friday
County Counsel should come
you think Mult
or are they completely
sepa rate
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On
Oct 22 2013
Works
From
Lake
Sent
To
for
me
Potter
Lake James
Sheila
mailto lake
sheila
room
law works
potter
doj state or us
wrote
here
com
2013 1 37 PM
Sheila
Potter
get us a conference
ll
October 22
Meeting
Lea Ann and
PM
1 55
Perriguey
Tuesday
Subject
at
Friday
would
like
PM
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
CONSERVE RESOURCES
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
VON TER STEGGE

H
2013 2 15 35 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
10 22
Subject
Re
Sheila
Hi Sheila
On
Thursday
as
if
am
free
any time
after
11 a
m sure
not more interesting than the conversations
we
your
internal
conversation
toda y about strategy will be at least
ve been having around here
It
be fun to compare notes
will
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
503 988 3377
County Attorney
Portland
OR
97214
fax
multco us
Tue
Yes
Suite
Oct 22 2013
am
on our
at
9 53
AM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
meeting with internal folks later today
strategies
so nice to
work
how
s your
Thursday
with you on this
since
we
am
potter
doj state or us
wrote
and should do those meetings rst so
that I
m fully
briefed
generally open except around the middleof the day Will be
never had occasion
to
work
together
when
you
were here
Sheila
From
Sent
To
Katharine
Monday
Potter
Subject
VON TER STEGGE
October 21
Sheila
mailto katevts
multco
us
2013 12 57 PM
Sheila
m working
on
this
case for the County
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
this
We
week
should probably
strategies
Do
you have
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
Multnomah
500
County Attorney
Portland
OR
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
H
VON TER STEGGE
2013 2 26 05 PM
Sheila
Katharine
Sent
10 22
Subject
RE
That
it
give
you a call
From
Katharine
Sent
Tuesday
To
will
Potter
Subject
Let
s go with 11 00
VON TER
October
Sheila
Re
STEGGE
22
my thing
mailto
2013
isn t
katevts
till
noon
Want
to
meet
up
or shall
just
multco us
2 16 PM
Geiger same
Hi Sheila
On
Thursday
strategy
having
Kate
von
501
SE
503
988
Ter
It
Attorney
Suite
503
Oct 22
potter
not
be fun
11 a m
more
to
500
m sure your internal
interesting
compare
3377
than
the
conversation
conversations
today
we
ve
about
been
notes
9 53 AM
at
the
together
Potter
or us mailto
folks
on our strategies
day
97214
with internal
when
OR
Attorney
fax
2013
doj state
County
Portland
co
briefed
middle of
988
Multnomah
katevts
am meeting
work
will
if
Stegge
County
m fully
to
here
mailto
Tue
the
least as
3138
sheila
any time after
be at
Hawthorne
katevts
Yes
am free
around
Assistant
On
will
Will
potter
later today
how
be so nice
you were
Sheila
sheila
doj state
and
or us
wrote
should do those
s your Thursday
to
multco us
meetings
am generally
work
with you on this
since
we
katevts
multco us mailto
katevts
open
never
first
except
had
so that
around
occasion
here
Sheila
From
Katharine
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
VON TER
October
Sheila
STEGGE
21
2013
mailto
multco us
12 57 PM
Geiger same
Sheila
I
m working
strategies
on this case
Do
you have
for the
County
any time Tuesday
We
should probably
or Thursday
Thanks
Kate
von
Assistant
501
SE
Ter
Stegge
County
Hawthorne
Attorney
Suite
500
Multnomah
Portland
County
OR
Attorney
97214
of
chat
this week
soon
about
our respective
503
988
katevts
3138
tel
mailto
503
katevts
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
988
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
co
keep
988
3377
tel
503
988
information
applicable
that
503
3377
fax
multco us
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
3138
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
VON TER STEGGE

H
2013 2 42 09 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
10 22
Subject
Re
Sheila
Sheila
Can you do
meet
in
The County
a meeting at 10 15 or 10 30 on Thursday
and to make
that
person
my
happen the meeting has to be before 11

your
either
can come to you
or ours
office
This
Attorney
conflict
Jenny
Madkour
wants to
meeting can be r escheduled
participate
suggest
we
the rare case that might actually draw interest in a Starbucks
is
We
unless you d like a field trip
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
On
From
Sent
To
503 988 3377
County Attorney
Portland
OR
97214
fax
multco us
Tue
That
500
Oct 22 2013
Potter
October
Sheila
Re
PM
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Tuesday
Subject
2 26
Potter
Let s go with 11 00
will
it
at
Sheila
my thing
sheila
isn t
mailto katevts
multco
potter
noon
wrote
doj state or us
Want
to meet
up
or
shall
katevts
Suite
till
501
just give
you a
call
us
22 2013 2 16 PM
Hi Sheila
On
Thursday
as
if
am
free
any time
after
11 a
m sure
we
your
internal
conversation
It
will
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
Multnomah
500
County Attorney
Portland
OR
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
Tue
Oct 22 2013
at
9 53
AM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Yes
am
on our
how
strategies
so nice to
work
s your
Thursday
with you on this
since
am
we
that I
m fully
briefed
never had occasion
to
work
together
when
you
were here
Sheila
From
Sent
To
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Monday
Potter
Subject
October 21
mailto katevts
multco
us
2013 12 57 PM
Sheila
Sheila
m working
on
this
case for the County
this
We
should probably
strategies
Do
you have
week
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
Multnomah
500
County Attorney
Portland
OR
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
H
VON TER STEGGE
2013 3 12 48 PM
Sheila
Katharine
Sent
10 22
Subject
RE
Ha
Yes
this might not
us a room
From
Katharine
Tuesday
Potter
Subject
be one
for Starbucks
agree
And
yes
let
s do 10 15
and
ll
reserve
here
Sent
To
VON TER
October
Sheila
Re
STEGGE
22
mailto
2013
katevts
multco us
2 42 PM
Geiger same
Sheila
Can
to
you do a meeting
participate
can
that
field
Kate
10 15 or 10 30 on Thursday
make
that
suggest
might actually
draw
happen
we
meet
the
in person
interest
The
meeting
County
has to
Attorney
be before
11
either your office
in a Starbucks
We
can
come
Jenny Madkour
my conflict
or ours
to
you
This
unless
is
wants
meeting
the
rare
you d like
trip
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
503
988
Stegge
County
Attorney
Hawthorne
3138
katevts
Tue
Oct 22
potter
it
give
you a call
From
Katharine
Sent
Tuesday
will
Potter
co
2013
2 26 PM
VON TER
Potter
or us mailto
Sheila
STEGGE
22
97214
s go with 11 00
October
OR
Attorney
fax
3377
at
County
Portland
katevts
Let
Re
988
Multnomah
500
doj state
That
Subject
Suite
503
mailto
sheila
To
at
to
be rescheduled
case
On
and
my thing
mailto
2013
Sheila
sheila
potter
isn t
katevts
multco us
doj state
till
noon
or us
Want
multco us mailto
to
wrote
meet
katevts
up
or shall
just
multco us
2 16 PM
Geiger same
Hi Sheila
On
Thursday
strategy
having
Kate
around
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
503
988
will
am free
least as
here
It
will
if
not
be fun
11 a m
more
to
m sure your internal
interesting
compare
than
the
Hawthorne
tel
Attorney
Suite
503
988
Multnomah
500
3138
County
Portland
503
988
OR
notes
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
3377
conversation
conversations
Stegge
County
3138
any time after
be at
fax
we
today
ve
about
been
katevts
On
mailto
Tue
Oct 22
sheila
Yes
I
potter
to
co
2013
9 53 AM
Potter
or us mailto
day
Will
when
folks
how
multco us
potter
later today
be so nice
you were
Sheila
sheila
on our strategies
the
together
with internal
briefed
middle of
work
at
doj state
am meeting
m fully
the
katevts
doj state
and
s your Thursday
to
or us
wrote
should do those
I
meetings
am generally
work
with you on this
since
we
katevts
multco us mailto
katevts
open
first
so that
except
never
had
around
occasion
here
Sheila
From
Katharine
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
VON TER
October
Sheila
STEGGE
21
mailto
2013
multco us
12 57 PM
Geiger same
Sheila
I
m working
on this case
strategies
Do
you have
for the
County
any time Tuesday
We
should probably
or Thursday
of
chat
soon
about
our respective
this week
Thanks
Kate
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
503
988
katevts
Stegge
County
Attorney
Hawthorne
3138
Suite
tel
mailto
503
This
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
Portland
3138
co
keep
503
988
OR
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
information
applicable
that
County
3377
fax
multco us
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
500
988
katevts
CONFIDENTIALITY
Multnomah
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
VON TER STEGGE

H
2013 3 52 33 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
10 22
Subject
Re
See you there Thursday
at
Sheila
10 15
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
OR
97214
fax
Oct 22 2013
at
3 12
PM
Potter
Sheila
Yes this might not be one for Starbucks
From
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Sent
To
503 988 3377
County Attorney
Portland
multco us
Tue
Ha
500
Suite
Tuesday
Potter
Subject
October
Sheila
Re
And
agree
multco
mailto katevts
potter
sheila
doj state or us
yes
let
do
wrote
10 15 and
Ill
reserve us a
room
here
us
22 2013 2 42 PM
Sheila
Can you do
meet
in
The County
a meeting at 10 15 or 10 30 on Thursday
and to make
that
person
my
happen the meeting has to be before 11

your
either
can come to you
office
or ours
This
is
Attorney
conflict
Jenny
Madkour
wants to
meeting can be r escheduled
participate
suggest
we
the rare case that might actually draw interest in a Starbucks
unless you d like a field trip
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
On
From
County Attorney
Portland
OR
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
Tue
That
Multnomah
500
it
Oct 22 2013
will
at
2 26
PM
Potter
Let s go with 11 00
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
Sheila
my thing
mailto katevts
isn t
sheila
multco
potter
noon
us
doj state or us
Want
to meet
up
wrote
or
shall
katevts
Suite
till
501
just give
you a
call
We
Sent
To
Tuesday
Potter
Subject
October
Sheila
Re
22 2013 2 16 PM
Hi Sheila
On
Thursday
as
if
am
free
any time
after
11 a
m sure
we
your
internal
conversation
It
will
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
County Attorney
Portland
OR
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
Tue
Yes
Suite
Oct 22 2013
am
on our
at
9 53
AM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
strategies
so nice to
work
how
s your
Thursday
with you on this
since
we
am
potter
doj state or us
wrote
that I
m fully
briefed
never had occasion
to
work
together
when
you
were here
Sheila
From
Sent
To
Katharine
Monday
Potter
Subject
VON TER STEGGE
October 21
Sheila
mailto katevts
multco
us
2013 12 57 PM
Sheila
m working
on
this
case for the County
Thanks
this
We
week
should probably
strategies
Do
you have
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
Multnomah
500
County Attorney
Portland
OR
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Sent
10 23 2013 5 21 26
Subject
RE
They
are completely
positions
person
and
on Friday
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Confirmed
Lake
Law
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
recipient
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
Works
503
503
ll
the
www
Let
our offices
s meet
in
us
com
should come
or are they
completely
separate
law
works
com
get
RESOURCES
sender
works
1 55 PM
or privileged
immediately
com
Potter
and
Sheila
or us mailto
22
lake
2013
law
room
works
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
the
to
and
intended
lake
law
attachments
sheila
us a conference
mailto
delete
information
by return
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
here
com http
law
works
com
1 37 PM
H
Friday
would
like
to
meet
2 PM
Perriguey
LLC
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
PRINT
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
keep
law
works
com
RESOURCES
NOTICE
information
applicable
that
www
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
disclosure
503
com http
Civil
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Counsel
confidential
law
October
Madison
Portland
T
at
Sheila
and
SW
discuss
Justice
doj state
James H
1906
lake
Meeting
Ann
County
CONSERVE
Perriguey
Potter
Lake
OTLA
Civil
2013
potter
for me
Law
of
com mailto
Subject
to
re at
1 59 PM
com http
PRINT
Works
Lea
works
please notify
Oct 22
To
Mult
e mail may contain
sheila
of
they
97205
227
lagojaime
On
be with all
works
tomorrow
where
Street
Oregon
skype
works
law
can
and
Perriguey
www
This
lake
set with Kate
their plans
conferrals
mailto
2013
hear
Friday
you think
http
OTLA
future
22
a meeting
to
LLC
Portland
T
have
Meeting
James H
1906
then
October
Do
Works
and
Sheila
Re
be interested
James Perriguey
Potter
Subject
separate
will
PM
Meeting Friday
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
10 23 2013 5 27 42
Subject
Re
Sheila
Meeting
H
PM
Friday
Sheila
thought
you might be coordinating
that
Lea Ann and
see you at 2
I will
pm
at
a defense
your
office
and
we
could
all
discuss scheduling
on Friday
Thank you
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

may
This e mail
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On
Oct 23 2013
at
5 21
PM
Potter
They are completely separate

be
will
interested
can be with
From
James Perriguey
To
Lake
Tuesday
Potter
Subject
October
Sheila
Re
Lake James
have a meeting
all
SW
set with Kate
wrote
tomorrow to
oces
discuss our
Let s meet in person onFriday
mailto lake
law works
com
22 2013 1 59 PM
you think Mult
Perriguey
Madison
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
doj state or us
Portland
http
potter
of us
Law Works LLC

1906
sheila
Meeting Friday
Do
Confirmed
to hear their plans and where they re at
conferrals
Sent
Sheila
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
sepa rate
positions
and then
and
future
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
you are not the
If
and
all
Oct 22 2013
at
this e mail
On
Works
From
Lake
Sent
To
for
me
Potter
Lake James
recipient
law works com and
delete
Potter
Sheila
get us a conference
ll
mailto lake
sheila
room
law works
potter
doj state or us
wrote
here
com
2013 1 37 PM
Meeting
Lea Ann and
PM
1 55
October 22
Sheila
ntended
Perriguey
Tuesday
Subject
lake
Friday
would
like
PM
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT CONSERVE RESOURCES

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e mail
may
contain
information
disclosure under applicable

otherwise that you have
keep the contents

system
law
If
that is privileged
confidential
you are not the addressee or
it
appears from the
received this e mail in error please advise
confidential
and immediately
delete the
or otherwise ex empt from
me
context
or
immediately b y reply e mail
message and any attachment
from your
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
10 24 2013 9 06 26
Subject
RE
We
might very
we
re all
well
on the
From
Lake
Sent
Wednesday
To
mailto
October
Sheila
Re
up coordinating
page
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
wind
same
AM
Meeting Friday
23
will
but
invite
lake
law
2013
5 28 PM
them
works
won
to
know
till
later today
join us tomorrow
if
Assuming that
that
works
for you
com
Meeting
Friday
Sheila
I
thought
Lea
Ann
Thank
Lake
Law
that
and
will
James H
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
PRINT
at
are completely
person
on Friday
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
on Friday
SW
503
503
works
com
or privileged
works
immediately
com
and
Potter
separate
have
be interested
then
future
22
to
lake
this e mail and
potter
a meeting
hear
If
you are not
e mail with a copy

all
copies
the
to
and
intended
lake
law
attachments
sheila
doj state
set with Kate
their plans
conferrals
mailto
2013
delete
Sheila
or us mailto
information
by return
law
can
and
wrote
tomorrow
where
be with all
works
or us
of
they
to
discuss
re at
Let
our offices
s meet
in
us
com
1 59 PM
Meeting
Friday
you think
James H
Mult
County
Counsel
should come
or are they
completely
separate
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Portland
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
scheduling
RESOURCES
sender
5 21 PM
October
Do
Works
law
and
Sheila
Re
Confirmed
the
James Perriguey
Potter
Subject
1906
will
law
confidential
doj state
and
www
CONSERVE
lake
2013
potter
positions
Lake
discuss
Justice
please notify
Oct 23
OTLA
com http
Civil
com mailto
sheila
Law
works
e mail may contain
recipient
To
all
97205
227
skype
They
could
Street
Oregon
www
On
your office
we
Perriguey
http
This
2 pm at
and
LLC
Portland
OTLA
see you at
a defense
you
Works
1906
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
law
works
com
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
www
RESOURCES
confidential
or privileged
information
If
you are not
the
intended
recipient
works
On
please notify
com mailto
Oct 22
sheila
2013
potter
Works
for me
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Lea
Law
Sheila
and
Works
SW
503
503
Sheila
or us mailto
22
lake
2013
law
room
works
by return
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
lake
law
attachments
sheila
us a conference
mailto
delete
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
here
com http
law
works
com
1 37 PM
like
to
meet
2 PM
LLC
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
PRINT
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
keep
law
works
com
RESOURCES
NOTICE
information
applicable
that
www
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
disclosure
503
com http
Civil
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Potter
and
Perriguey
http
OTLA
immediately
com
Friday
would
Madison
Portland
T
get
October
James H
1906
ll
sender
works
1 55 PM
doj state
Meeting
Ann
Lake
at
the
law
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
lake
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
10 24 2013 10 05 17
Subject
Re
Sheila
Meeting
H
AM
Friday
Great
On
law works com
Oct 24 2013
We
AM
9 06
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
but
won
might very well wind up coordinating
same page
From
Lake
Sent
To
at
will invite
Perriguey
Wednesday
Potter
Subject
Sheila
Re
them to
mailto lake
join us
law works
tomorrow
if
doj state or us
know
that
till
www
http
works
wrote
later today
for
Assuming
that
we
re all
on the
you
com
23 2013 5 28 PM
October
Meeting Friday
Sheila
thought
that
Lea Ann and
see you at 2
I will
pm
at
a defense
your
office
and
we
could
all
discuss scheduling
on Friday
Thank you
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
On
Oct 23 2013
PM
5 21
at
Potter
They are completely separate

be
will
can be with
From
James Perriguey
Lake
To
Tuesday
Potter
Subject
sheila
have a meeting
potter
doj state or us
set with Kate
wrote
tomorrow to
oces
discuss our
Let s meet in person onFriday
positions
and then
and
future
of us
all
mailto lake
law works
com
22 2013 1 59 PM
October
Sheila
Re
to hear their plans and where they re at
interested
conferrals
Sent
Sheila
Meeting Friday
Do
Confirmed
Lake James
you think Mult
sepa rate
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
If
you are not the
and
all
Oct 22 2013
at
this e mail
On
Works
From
Sent
To
for
Lake
me
Potter
1 55
Sheila
Lea Ann and
PM
mailto lake
SW
Portland
would
like
Madison
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
Street
97205
law works com
lagojaime
room
law works
potter
here
com
Perriguey
Oregon
www
sheila
Friday
skype
T
http
Sheila
2013 1 37 PM
Law Works LLC

1906
Potter
get us a conference
ll
October 22
Meeting
Lake James
Perriguey
Tuesday
Subject
lake
PM
doj state or us
wrote
ntended
recipient
law works com and
delete
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT
CONSERVE RESOURCES
This e mail
may
contain
information

otherwise that you have
keep the contents

system
law
If
that is privileged
confidential
it
appears from the
received this e mail in error please advise
confidential
and immediately
delete the
or otherwise ex empt from
me
context
or
immediately b y reply e mail
message and any attachment
from your
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
10 24 2013 2 26 19
Subject
RE
They
re checking
Lake
Sent
Thursday
To
Potter
Subject
their calendars
Perriguey
From
mailto
October
Sheila
Re
PM
Meeting Friday
24
lake
2013
and
will
join us if
law
works
they
can
com
10 05 AM
Meeting
Friday
Great
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
0 0
detectors
0 0
334
2340
tel
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
Oct 24
works
of
might very
we
re all
Lake
Wednesday
at
20334
2340
www
law
works
com
Justice
wind
same
RESOURCES
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
page
mailto
23
will
sheila
up coordinating
October
Sheila
Re
503
9 06 AM
Perriguey
Potter
1928
doj state
on the
Sent
20227
CONSERVE
well
From
Subject
Civil
2013
potter
503
com http
PRINT
We
To
detectors
data
tel
skype
sheila
data
x apple
1928
www
On
x apple
97205
227
http
OTLA
Street
Oregon
potter
but
invite
lake
law
2013
5 28 PM
them
works
won
to
doj state
t
know
or us
till
wrote
later today
join us tomorrow
if
Assuming that
that
works
for you
com
Meeting
Friday
Sheila
I
thought
Lea
Ann
Thank
Lake
Law
that
and
will
James H
SW
503
503
Madison
227
1928
334
2340
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
all
discuss
scheduling
on Friday
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
Oct 23
sheila
2013
potter
lake
at
law
works
com
law
the
sender
works
5 21 PM
doj state
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
On
could
Street
Oregon
www
works
your office
we
Perriguey
http
This
2 pm at
and
LLC
Portland
OTLA
see you at
a defense
you
Works
1906
or privileged
immediately
com
Potter
and
delete
Sheila
or us mailto
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
They
are completely
positions
person
and
on Friday
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Confirmed
Lake
Law
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
recipient
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
Works
503
503
ll
the
www
Let
our offices
s meet
in
us
com
should come
or are they
completely
separate
law
works
com
get
RESOURCES
sender
works
1 55 PM
or privileged
immediately
com
Potter
and
Sheila
or us mailto
22
lake
2013
law
room
works
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
the
to
and
intended
lake
law
attachments
sheila
us a conference
mailto
delete
information
by return
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
here
com http
law
works
com
1 37 PM
H
Friday
would
like
to
meet
2 PM
Perriguey
LLC
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
PRINT
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
keep
law
works
com
RESOURCES
NOTICE
information
applicable
that
www
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
disclosure
503
com http
Civil
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Counsel
confidential
law
October
Madison
Portland
T
at
Sheila
and
SW
discuss
Justice
doj state
James H
1906
lake
Meeting
Ann
County
CONSERVE
Perriguey
Potter
Lake
OTLA
Civil
2013
potter
for me
Law
of
com mailto
Subject
to
re at
1 59 PM
com http
PRINT
Works
Lea
works
please notify
Oct 22
To
Mult
e mail may contain
sheila
of
they
97205
227
lagojaime
On
be with all
works
tomorrow
where
Street
Oregon
skype
works
law
can
and
Perriguey
www
This
lake
set with Kate
their plans
conferrals
mailto
2013
hear
Friday
you think
http
OTLA
future
22
a meeting
to
LLC
Portland
T
have
Meeting
James H
1906
then
October
Do
Works
and
Sheila
Re
be interested
James Perriguey
Potter
Subject
separate
will
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
VON TER STEGGE

H
2013 3 16 52 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
10 24
Subject
Geiger
Sheila
Hi Sheila
just
spoke to Lake
One
or both of us will be at the meeting tomorrow at 2
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
Multnomah
500
503 988 3377
multco us
County Attorney
Portland
fax
OR
97214
We
are
planning
our
outfits
From
Potter
To
Sent
10 24
Subject
RE
Ha
H
VON TER STEGGE
2013 3 18 05 PM
Sheila
Katharine
will
Geiger
up my personal
game
From
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
Sent
Thursday
October
24
To
Potter
Subject
Sheila
accordingly
mailto
2013
katevts
multco us
3 17 PM
Geiger
Hi Sheila
I
just spoke
to
Lake
One or both
of
us will
be at
the
meeting
tomorrow
our outfits
Kate
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
503
988
katevts
Stegge
County
Attorney
Hawthorne
3138
mailto
Suite
503
988
katevts
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
County
OR
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
at
We
are planning
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
10 29 2013 8 29 04
Subject
Geiger
Sheila
H
AM
Sheila
am
Do
preparing a Motion for
you have a few moments
Lake James
Summary Judgment
this
week
in
anticipation
to speak with
me
of your and the county
answer
on the phone about your anticipa ted arguments
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
VON TER STEGGE

H
2013 10 12 52 AM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
10 31
Subject
Geiger
Sheila
Hi Sheila
Have you had any more
thoughts
not seek to split the Plaintiff
discussions as to whether
fee petition
Happy Halloween
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
Multnomah
500
503 988 3377
multco us
County Attorney
Portland
fax
OR
97214
Lake says
that
the State will indemnify the
he won
County or
at least
seek from fe es from the County
agree
to
From
Potter
To
H
VON TER STEGGE
2013 10 39 46 AM
Sheila
Katharine
Sent
10 31
Subject
RE
Just got
an adjuster
Geiger
assigned
From
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
Sent
Thursday
October
31
To
Potter
Subject
Sheila
and
he s the
mailto
2013
one
katevts
need
to
talk
to
and
will
multco us
10 13 AM
Geiger
Hi Sheila
Have
you had
or at
seek
from fees
Happy
Kate
any more
least agree
to
thoughts
not
from the
seek
discussions
to
split
the
as to
whether
Plaintiff
the
s fee
State
will
petition
County
Halloween
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
503
988
katevts
Stegge
County
Attorney
Hawthorne
3138
mailto
Suite
503
988
katevts
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
County
OR
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
indemnify
Lake
says
the
that
County
he won
From
Potter
To
Sheila
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
Sent
11 1 2013 11 40 03
Subject
Waivers
ve
the
got
both
waivers
AG in our system
you two for Jennifer

Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
so I
to
go over
m sending
sorry
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
to
you today
you a copy
Potter
Portland
Phone
ready
com
AM
5000
of
we
that
had
one
a copy
of
the
Not sure how
signed waiver
we
wound
for
up sending
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Lake Perriguey
Sent
11 1 2013 11 40 50
Subject
RE
ve
got
point
time this afternoon
but
m always
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Subject
happy
Perriguey
I
to
mailto
October
Sheila
AM
Geiger
29
m not
give
lake
2013
sure how
much
m in a position
to
tell
you at
this
you a call
law
works
com
8 29 AM
Geiger
Sheila
I
am preparing
Do
you have
a Motion
for Summary Judgment
a few moments this week
to
speak
in anticipation
with me on the
of
your and
phone
about
the
county
s answer
your anticipated
arguments
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
97205
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
11 1 2013 11 41 46
Subject
RE
Sheila
H
AM
Waivers
Great
Thank you
Have a
great
weekend
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
mailto sheila
November
potter
doj state or us
01 2013 11 40 AM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Sheila
Friday
Waivers
ve got both waivers ready to go over to you today
system so
m sending
you a copy of
that
we
one Not sure
had a copy of the signed
how we wound up
waiver
for the
sending you
two
AG
in our
for Jennifer
sorry
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
Avenue
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
11 1 2013 11 47 37
Subject
RE
Thank
you
From
Lea
Sent
Friday
To
You
Ann
Potter
Subject
have
weekend
mailto
November
Sheila
RE
a good
Easton
AM
Waivers
01
too
LEaston
2013
dorsayindianlaw
com
11 42 AM
Waivers
Great
Thank
Lea
you
Have
From
Potter
Friday
Lea
Ann
Sheila
both
got
mailto
waivers
so I
you two for Jennifer

Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
doj state
or us
to
go over
m sending
to
you today
you a copy
of
we
that
had
one
a copy
of
the
Not sure how
signed waiver
we
wound
for
up sending
sorry
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
potter
11 40 AM
Potter
Portland
Phone
sheila
2013
ready
AG in our system
1515
01
Easton
Waivers
ve
November
Subject
the
weekend
Ann
Sent
To
a great
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
11 5 2013 6 47 08
Subject
Re
Sheila
H
AM
Geiger
Dear Sheila
Thank you for responding
Do
you anticipated
scrutiny
strict
The
I
New
on holiday today
it
the state will acknowledge
that
compelling
video of the
am
is
not a dude ranch though
it
is
the history of discrimination agai nst gay people and advance
Mexico arguments were fascinating
have always been stunned
at
the colloquy
in
basis analysis
the sophistry
promoted by otherwise
intelligent
people
people are a minority with a history of discrimination and that only a rational basis
At one point
Texas
NM
Supreme Court
asked
justice
Have you
who would deny
test
that
gay
should apply
never hear d of the concept
in
the
closet
Mary
Williams letter to Michael
performed
do hope
Jordan articulating
the basis for the directive
out of state recognizes that a court could
that
the state will encourage the court
apply a strict scrutiny
to apply a strict scrutiny
to r ecognize same sex marriages
analysis
analysis
Lake
Lake James
Perrigueyc
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On Nov
1 2013
at
1 40
PM
ve got time this afternoon
happy to give you a
From
Sent
To
Lake
Potter
Subject
Sheila
Perriguey
Tuesday
October
Sheila
Geiger
Potter
Sheila
sheila
m not sure how
call
mailto lake
law works
29 2013 8 29 AM
com
potter
much
doj state or us
m in a position
wrote
to
tell
you
at
this point
but
m always
am
Do
preparing a Motion for
you have a few moments
Lake James
Summary Judgment
this
week
in
anticipation
to speak with
me
answer
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
leaston
Sent
11 5 2013 9 12 28
Subject
Fwd
Hey
do you have
careful
about
say before
her to
we
forwarded
From
Lake
Date
November
Dear
her to
lake
2013
down
the
want
of
to
people
AG s door
worry Lake
want
to
to
find
but
know
out
also want
what
we
so that
to
re going
they
can
be
to
lobby
law
works
sheila
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
PST
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
though
is
Geiger
you anticipated
and
video
have
deny
advance
of
the
always
that
basis
am on holiday today
the
state
a strict
New
been
Mexico
stunned
in the
in the
the
acknowledge
compelling
arguments
at
were
is
the
basis
not
a dude
ranch
history of
it
discrimination
Texas
against
gay
analysis
fascinating
sophistry
promoted
by otherwise
are a minority with a history of
intelligent
discrimination
and
people
that
who
would
only a rational
colloquy
a NM
Supreme
Court justice
asked
Have
you never
heard
of
the
closet
Mary
Williams
same
sex marriages performed
scrutiny
will
scrutiny
it
should apply
point
concept
that
gay people
test
At one
don
a lot
say
6 47 08 AM
you for responding
people
The
are battering
want
Sheila
Thank
Do
today
in which
message
Sheila
Re
in a case
and
they
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
AM
any time for a call
say it
say what
com
dorsayindianlaw
Geiger
discretion
Begin
To
Sheila
letter
to
Michael
Jordan
out
of
articulating
state
the
recognizes
basis
that
for the
a court
directive
could
apply
to
recognize
a strict
analysis
do hope
that
the
state
will
encourage
the
court
to
apply
a strict
scrutiny
analysis
Lake
James H
Lake
Law
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perrigueyc
LLC
Street
Oregon
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
works
Nov
ve
point
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
2013
potter
CONSERVE
got
lake
at
www
the
law
sender
works
1 40 PM
doj state
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
m always
Perriguey
October
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
com
Potter
happy
I
to
mailto
29
or privileged
immediately
and
Sheila
or us mailto
time this afternoon
but
law
Justice
please notify
com mailto
sheila
I
works
e mail may contain
recipient
On
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
97205
227
m not
give
lake
2013
delete
this e mail and
potter
sure how
you a call
law
If
you are not
e mail with a copy

all
copies
the
to
and
intended
lake
law
attachments
sheila
works
8 29 AM
information
by return
com
much
doj state
I
or us
m in a position
wrote
to
tell
you at
this
To
Potter
Subject
Sheila
Geiger
Sheila
I
am preparing
Do
you have
a Motion
to
in anticipation
speak
with me on the
of
your and
phone
about
the
county
s answer
your anticipated
arguments
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
Civil
PRINT
lake
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
the
law
keep
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
com
and
information
that
applicable
that
works
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
the
to
and
intended
lake
law
attachments
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
law
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
CONSERVE
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
com http
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
97205
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
11 5 2013 9 15 33
Subject
RE
do
need to nish
My oce
number
Sheila
up a project by 10 30
is
AM
Geiger
am
so any
me
aer 10 30 would be
ne
am in
the rest of the day
503 790 9060
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
05 2013 9 12 AM
November
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Hey
in
Sheila
Tuesday
Fwd
Geiger
do you have any time for a
today
call
a case in which a lot of people want to
AG s
door to
From Lake
To
Potter
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
Re
want to worry Lake
but I also
re going to say before
want
we
say
to be careful about discretion
and are battering down the
it
message
law works com
lake
November 5 2013 6 47 08
Date
don
out so that they can lobby her to say what they want her to say
find
Begin forwarded
know what we
sheila
AM
potter
mailto lake
law works com
PST
doj state or us
mailto sheila potter
doj state or us
Geiger
Dear Sheila
Thank you for responding
Do
you anticipated
scrutiny
strict
The
I
that
New
am
on holiday today
it
the state will acknowledge
compelling
video of the
is
not a dude ranch though
it
is
the history of discrimination agai nst gay people and advance
basis analysis
Mexico arguments were fascinating
have always been stunned
at
the sophistry
promoted by otherwise
intelligent
people
people are a minority with a history of discrimination and that only a rational basis
At one point
in
Texas
the colloquy
NM
Supreme Court
justice
asked
Have you
who would deny
test
that
gay
should apply
never heard
of the concept
in
the
closet
Mary
Williams letter to Michael
performed
do hope
out of state recognizes that a court could
that
the state will encourage the court
Lake
Lake James
Perrigueyc
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
503
Jordan articulating
Madison
Street
Oregon 97205
227 1928
the basis for the directive

apply a strict scrutiny
to apply a strict scrutiny
to r ecognize same sex marriages
analysis
analysis
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
This e mail
may
law works com
Justice
DON T PRINT
PLEASE
www
http
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to

this
e mail and
On Nov
If
you are not the
law works com
in
tended recipient
please
law works com
mailto lake
notify
the
and delete
all
1 2013
lake
at
1 40
PM
Potter
Sheila
m not
sure
sheila
potter
doj state or us
doj state or us
wrote
ve got time
this
afternoon
how much
m in a
position to
tell
you
at this
point
but I
m always
happy to
give you a call
From Lake
Sent
To
Perriguey
Tuesday
Potter
Subject
mailto lake
law works com
October 29 2013 8 29
Sheila
AM
Geiger
Sheila
am preparing
Do you have a
I
Lake James
a Motion for
few moments
Summary Judgment
this
week
in
anticipation
to speak with
me
answer
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Street
Oregon 97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
PLEASE
Civil
may
law works com
Justice
DON T PRINT
This e mail
www
http
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to

this
e mail and
all
may
law works com
in
tended recipient
mailto lake
please
law works com
notify
the
and delete
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
you are not the
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
If
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
11 5 2013 9 16 59
Subject
Re
Thank
Sheila
AM
Geiger
you
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
Nov
2013
LEaston
I
do
the
My
at
need
rest of
9 15 AM
to
Lea
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
by 10 30 am so any time after
10 30 would
be fine
am in
day
number
From
Potter
Tuesday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
Hey
is
503
Sheila
790
9060
her to
about
we
say it
forwarded
From
Lake
works
com
Date
November
mailto
Dear
or us
her to
don
a lot
down
the
want
of
to
worry Lake
people
AG s door
want
to
to
find
but
know
out
also want
what
we
so that
to
re going
they
can
be
to
lobby
say
message
mailto
5
lake
lake
2013
Sheila
Re
today
in which
are battering
want
law
law
potter
works
works
lake
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
PST
potter
doj state
com mailto
com 3e 3e
6 47 08 AM
sheila
doj state
or us
or us mailto
mailto
sheila
sheila
potter
potter
doj state
doj state
or us
or us 3e 3e
Geiger
you for responding
you anticipated
people
and
video
have
deny
advance
of
the
always
that
basis
am on holiday today
the
state
a strict
New
been
Mexico
stunned
in the
in the
the
basis
not
a dude
history of
ranch
though
it
discrimination
is
Texas
against
gay
analysis
fascinating
sophistry
promoted
by otherwise
intelligent
discrimination
and
that
people
who
would
only a rational
colloquy
a NM
Supreme
Court justice
asked
Have
you never
heard
sex marriages performed
letter
to
Michael
out
Jordan
of
articulating
state
recognizes
the
basis
that
for the
a court
could
directive
apply
to
the
state
Lake
James H
LLC
the
recognize
a strict
analysis
that
of
closet
Williams
Works
were
is
are a minority with a history of
same
do hope
the
acknowledge
compelling
arguments
at
Mary
scrutiny
will
scrutiny
it
should apply
point
concept
that
gay people
test
At one
Lake
doj state
Sheila
Thank
The
potter
9 12 AM
in a case
and
they
Perriguey
sheila
Subject
sheila
2013
any time for a call
discretion
say what
Potter
05
Geiger
Begin
To
mailto
Easton
do you have
say before
November
Fwd
careful
Law
Easton
LEaston
finish up a project
the
Sent
Ann
com mailto
Ann
Lea
Justice
dorsayindianlaw
office
Do
of
Perrigueyc
will
encourage
the
court
to
apply
a strict
scrutiny
analysis
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Street
Oregon
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
On
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
delete
Nov
lake
law
at
potter
doj state
mailto
sheila
potter
ve
got
point
all
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
Potter
Subject
com
Potter
I
to
mailto
October
Sheila
http
or privileged
mailto
and
Sheila
or us mailto
happy
Perriguey
com
immediately
copies
doj state
m always
From
To
sender
time this afternoon
but
works
www
law
works
com
3e
RESOURCES
works
1 40 PM
sheila
the
this e mail and

2013
law
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
and
97205
227
29
law
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
works
com
mailto
lake
the
to
intended
lake
law
law
works
com 3e
attachments
H
sheila
potter
mailto
m not
sure how
lake
2013
lake
or us
give
information
by return
doj state
or us
sheila
potter
much
m in a position
doj state
or us 3e 3e
to
tell
wrote
you at
this
you a call
law
works
com
8 29 AM
Geiger
Sheila
I
am preparing
Do
you have
a Motion
to
in anticipation
speak
with me on the
of
your and
phone
about
the
county
s answer
your anticipated
arguments
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
works
Civil
PRINT
delete
lake
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
the
all
keep
com
http
www
law
works
com
3e
or privileged
immediately
com
mailto
copies
and
information
by return
lake
law
works
If
you are not
e mail with a copy

com
mailto
lake
the
to
law
intended
lake
law
works
com 3e
attachments
NOTICE
information
applicable
that
sender
works
this e mail and
under
works
RESOURCES
confidential
law
e mail may contain
disclosure
law
Justice
please notify
com mailto
www
CONSERVE
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
com http
e mail may contain
recipient
and
law
97205
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
11 6 2013
Subject
Geiger
just
wanted to
let
you both know
session next Tuesday morning
If
you want
there s anything
VON TER STEGGE

H Lake Perriguey
12 33 24 PM
Sheila
me
that
to
tell
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
Multnomah
500
503 988 3377
multco us
County Attorney
Portland
fax
OR
am
going to brief the County Commissioners
would love to be able to
97214
tell
them where
them or want to make sure
that I
we
tell
on
this
case in an executive
stand on the fees issue
them
please let
me know
if
that s
possible
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Katharine
CC
Potter
Sent
11 7 2013
Subject
Re
VON TER STEGGE

H
6 36 32 AM
Sheila
Geiger
Katharine
Our
Thank you for the update
Lake James
position remains the same
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
lake
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On Nov
just
6 2013
wanted to
at
let
12 33
PM
Katharine
you both know
session next Tuesday morning
If
you want
there s anything
me
that
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
Multnomah
500
to
tell
503 988 3377
multco us
County Attorney
Portland
fax
OR
am
97214
multco us
katevts
going to brief the County Commissioners
would love to be able to
Kate von Ter Stegge
VON TER STEGGE
tell
them where
them or want to make sure
that I
we
tell
wrote
on
this
case in an executive
stand on the fees issue
them
please let
me know
if
that s
possible
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
11 9 2013 6 43 03
Subject
Geiger
Sheila
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
PM
Hi Sheila and Katharine
There
is
Please
let
new development
me know
need a conference
Lake James
if
there
in
is
the case that
we
should discuss prior to the filing
a good time to speak on
Monday
or Tuesday
of responsive pleadings
m happy
we
to call you both
do not
call
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
VON TER STEGGE

H
2013 11 32 49 AM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
11 15
Subject
Geiger
Sheila
Hi Sheila
Do
you know about when you re going to
been working on ours

State will agree
but I
ll
get
it
done
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
Multnomah
500
503 988 3377
multco us
file
your answer
you are going to
not to seek to split the fee petition
Thanks
501
if
County Attorney
Portland
fax
OR
97214
I just
file
got a voicemail
yours soon
from Le Ann about
that
haven
Also any word on whether or not the
From
Potter
To
H
VON TER STEGGE
2013 3 20 55 PM
Sheila
Katharine
Sent
11 15
Subject
RE
Probably next
Will
nudge
week
on the
From
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Subject
Geiger
fee
thing
VON TER
November
Sheila
haven
STEGGE
15
mailto
2013
been
pushing
katevts
on that
but
will
multco us
11 33 AM
Geiger
Hi Sheila
Do
you know
about
that
about
I
yours soon
when
haven
Also
you re going
been
any word
working
to
file
on ours
your answer
but
it
ll
on whether
or not
the
Multnomah
County
Attorney
get
State
will
just got
done
agree
if
a voicemail
not
petition
Thanks
Kate
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
503
988
katevts
Stegge
County
Attorney
Hawthorne
3138
mailto
Suite
503
988
katevts
500
3377
co
Portland
OR
97214
fax
from Le Ann
you are going
multco us
to
seek
to
to
file
split
the
fee
From
Potter
To
leaston
CC
Katharine
Sent
11 19
Subject
Question
Lake
In
and
Lea
a couple
laws
other
Oregon
dorsayindianlaw
Perriguey
on pleadings
places
in the
complaint
marriage
com Lake
VON TER STEGGE

2013 8 58 44 AM
Ann
of
those
Sheila
statutes
5
that
Oregon
and
exclude
statutes
there
is
or calling
gay and
which
a reference
for them
to
lesbian people
refer
to
husband
other
laws
be enjoined
to
See
from equal
and
wife
alleging
access
and
that
Complt
to
all
civil
by implication
restrict
26
all
marriage to only a man and a woman

22
Oregon s discriminatory marriage laws
Oregon statutes restricting marriage to heterosexual couples
33
all Oregon
statutes
referring
statutes
to
relief
1
12
laws
Ordinarily
to
can
We
the
to
Oregon
that
we
invalidate
they
limit
statutes
would
in the
want
in light
of
limit
easy to
It
to
helps
only
specifically
focus
Sheila
Potter
Oregon
Department
of
Justice
wife
30
husband
and
35
34
37
wife
all
38
and
Request
state
request
fo
for
relief
the
list
the
argument
state
and
statutes
ensures
that
complaint
here
they
the
are seeking
final
order
implement
everything
Deputy Chief Counsel

Trial Division
and
sex marriage
going
to
ask for an amended
provide us with a list

that we can incorporate
into
like the quickest way to all get on the same page
Thanks
husband
heterosexuals
marriage to
impede same
plaintiffs
complaint
and
describing
marriage to
that
bar or in any way
be definitive
re not
marriage and
extent
our Answer
as a stipulation
but
That
can
you
seems
From
Potter
To
H
VON TER STEGGE
2013 3 01 54 PM
Sheila
Katharine
Sent
11 19
Subject
RE
Have
just confirmed
From
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Subject
Geiger
that
VON TER
November
Sheila
we
won
STEGGE
15
seek
mailto
2013
to
split
katevts
any fees
multco us
11 33 AM
Geiger
Hi Sheila
Do
you know
about
that
about
I
yours soon
when
haven
Also
you re going
been
any word
working
to
file
on ours
your answer
but
it
ll
on whether
or not
the
Multnomah
County
Attorney
get
State
will
just got
done
agree
if
a voicemail
not
petition
Thanks
Kate
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
503
988
katevts
Stegge
County
Attorney
Hawthorne
3138
mailto
Suite
503
988
katevts
500
3377
co
Portland
OR
97214
fax
from Le Ann
you are going
multco us
to
seek
to
to
file
split
the
fee
VON TER STEGGE

H
2013 11 38 49 AM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
11 20
Subject
Re
Sheila
Geiger
Sheila
Thanks for following up and thanks for
this
decision
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior Assistant County Attorney
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
To
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
Nov 19 2013
just
From
Sent
500
multco us
Tue
Have
Suite
conrmed
Katharine
Friday
Potter
Subject
3 01
that
PM
Potter Sheila
we won
VON TER STEGGE
November
Sheila
at
seek to
mailto katevts
split
sheila
any
multco
potter
doj state or us
wrote
fees
us
15 2013 11 33 AM
Geiger
Hi Sheila
Do
you know about when you re going to
been working on ours

State will agree
but I
ll
get
it
done
file
if
your answer
you are going to
I just
file
got a voicemail
yours soon
from Le Ann about
that
haven
Also any word on whether or not the
not to seek to split the fee petition
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
Multnomah
500
County Attorney
Portland
OR
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
is
privileged
confidential
or otherwise
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
me
or
it
appears
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Katharine
Sent
11 21
Subject
RE
Attachments
Oregon Laws Conferring Rights
No ce
This
intended
communica on
a specic
for
should delete
this
any disclosure
H Lake Perriguey
VON TER STEGGE
2013 12 55 06 PM
Sheila
on pleadings
Question
including
communica on and
is
Husbands and
privileged or
by law
protected
communica on
or the taking
Wives
docx
conde
you are
If
or shred the materials and any a achments
or distribu on of this
copying
and
on
may contain
any a achments
individual and purpose
Obligations
n al informa on
not the intended recipient you

hereby no ed that
and are
on based on
of any ac
it
strictly
is
prohibited
No ce
we
To comply with IRS regula ons
communica on
any a achments
including
inform you that any

is
party any transac
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
Code
penal es under the Internal Revenue
avoiding
or
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ii
ce contained
ed
or recom
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
we
ve compiled of various places in Oregon Revised Statutes which
inclusive
it
of
such references
all
does not include
While
agree that
not capture
While
of
all
references
we
we
have aempted to capture
in statutes
in
despite our eorts
such reference
all
to iden fy each and e
Oregon Administra ve Rules which
should be able to
such references
also
with a spula on on this issue
RS
am
not
condent
very place in the statutes
am
cra
husband and wife
reference
would be aec
seems as though we should be able to
It
forward to hearing your thoughts on
come up
in
ted by this
concerned
he
spulaon
li
that
in
the
list
ve aached a
response to your request
is
Addi onally
ga on
that
aaching a
list
list
Sheila
may
to cover this issue but look
it
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton LLP
SW
Suite 440
Portland
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
From
Sent
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Katharine
Subject
mailto sheila
November
Tuesday
Lake
doj state or us
potter
19 2013 8 59 AM
Perriguey
VON TER STEGGE
Question on pleadings
Lake and Lea Ann
In a couple of places in the complaint

unconstitutional
and or
calling
there
is
a reference to
for them to be enjoined
and lesbian people from equal access to
civil
marriage
other laws
See Complt
5
Oregon
allegin
all
statutes
that
those laws are
other
Oregon
which
refer
to
statutes that
husband
exclude gay
and wife
and
by implication
Oregon
describing
35
restrict
marriage to only a
husband
only
and
37 38 and request for

1
relief
we
complaint
It
would want
34
wife
12
relief
Ordinarily
re not
plaintiffs
we
can incorporate
of everything
in light
woman
state statutes
all
Oregon
22
Oregon
33
to specifically
discrimin atory marriage laws

referring
26
all
to marriage and
30
mit marriage to heterosexuals
li
marriage to hu
the state statutes they are
that
sband and wife
Request for
as a stipulation
seeking to invalidate
the final order can be defin
going to ask for an amended complaint
into our Answer
Oregon statutes
sex marriage
list
and ensures
all
to the extent they
statutes that limit
way impede same
helps focus the argument
We
man and
marriage to heterosexual couples
That seems
like
here
but
the quickest
can you provide
way
in
the
and easy to implement
itive
to
all
us with a
list
that
get on the same page
Thanks
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
References
ORS
to
husband and wife in Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 40 Evidence Code

Burden
Burden
of Persuasion
of
Producing Evidence
Presumptions
o
ORS
40 135 Rule 311 Presumptions

1 The
following are presumptions
A man
u
as
and
ORS
deporting themselves
husband and wife have
lawful contract
woman
entered into a
of marriage
40 255 Rule 505 Husband wife

1 As used
in this section
privilege
unless the context
requires otherwise
means a
Marriage
marital relationship
between husband and wife
legally
recognized under the laws of
ORS Chapter
106
Marriage
this state
Domestic Partnership
Marriage
ORS
106 010 Marriage as

Marriage
males
is
who
in accordance
ORS
age
of parties
contract entered into in person by
civil
at least 17 years of age
years of age
contract
civil
and
females at
are otherwise capable
with
ORS
least
and solemnized
106 150
106 020 Prohibited and void marriages The
marriages are prohibited and
17
if
solemnized within
following
this state
are absolutely void
When
living
ORS
either party thereto
had a wife or husband
at the time of such marriage
106 041 Marriage license

1 All persons wishing
application
to enter into
record
a marriage contract
shall obtain a marriage license from the county clerk

application
ORS
directed to any person or religious

authorized
by
ORS
106 120
organization
or congregation
to solemnize
marriages and authorizing the person
organization
or congregation
and
upon
to join together as
husband
wife the persons named in the license
106 150 Form of solemnization
witnesses
solemnization before congregation
1 In the solemnization
is required except
declare
of
a marriage no particular form
that the parties thereto shall assent or
in the presence of the clergyperson
county clerk
and
or judicial officer solemnizing the marriage

presence of at least two witnesses
and
other to be husband
in the
each
that they take
wife
Domestic Partnership
o
106 305 Legislative findings The
Assembly finds
Legislative
that
7 The Legislative
Assembly recognizes that the Oregon
Constitution limits marriage to the union of
and one woman

seek
The
man
Assembly does not
Legislative
to alter this definition of
one
marriage in any way
through the Oregon Family Fairness Act and recognizes

that the Legislative
Assembly cannot bestow the status
of
marriage on partners in a domestic partnership The

Legislative
Assembly recognizes that numerous
distinctions
will exist
between these two
The
legally
Assembly
recognized
relationships
Legislative
recognizes
that the legal recognition of domestic
partnerships under the laws of this state
beyond the borders
effective
impact
of this state
restrictions contained in federal
may not
and
be
cannot
law
106 315 Prohibited and void domestic partnerships
domestic partnership is prohibited
a Either party
partner
and
void
wife or husband
had a
at the time of the
living
domestic partnership unless the partner
husband was
when
to the domestic partnership
wife or
the other party to the domestic
partnership
ORS Chapter
108
Husband and Wife Relationship
Property Rights Premarital Agreements
Title of
Chapter 108
Refers to
Husband and Wife
Relationship
General Provisions
o
ORS
108 010 Removal
civil
rights
same
of wife s civil
disabilities wife s
as husband s
All laws which impose or recognize
civil
disabilities
a wife which are not imposed or recognized

to the
husband hereby are repealed and
belonging to the husband not conferred

prior to June 14
o
2
all civil
upon
or which she does not have at
are conferred
among
the right of action for loss of
other things
of
rights
the wife
common law hereby

consortium
ORS
1941
upon
as existing as
upon her
including
her husband
108 020 Nonliability
for other
spouse
s obligations
Neither husband nor wife

liabilities
is liable for the debts
liable for the separate debts
or income
owned by
of property
ORS
108 030
Liability
108 040
either
they are not
nor
is the rent
husband or wife
of the other
husband
of
ORS
each other
of
liable for the separate debts
marriage and
of the other incurred before
except as otherwise provided in
or
for civil
injuries
committed by wife
For
all
civil
committed by a married
injuries
damages may be
from her alone and her
recovered
husband shall not be responsible therefor

where he would be
marriage did not
ORS
108 040
1 a
The expenses
ORS
of the family
them
thereto they
may be
b As used in
108 045
sued
of family
of
the education of the
the property of both
and
in relation
jointly or separately
Family means the husband

of the
wife
and minor
husband and wife
of stepparent for
expenses
of family
of children
1 The expenses
of the family and the education of
including stepchildren
property of both husband
ORS
the
this subsection
Liability
children
and
husband and wife or either
and education
expenses
upon
if
exist
minor children are chargeable
except in case
with her
of children
children
jointly responsible
Liability of parents for
and education
woman
108 050 Nonliability
and
are chargeable
wife
or either of
of wife s property for
minor
upon
the
them
husband
obligations
The
property
woman
and pecuniary
rights of every married
at the time of her marriage or afterwards acquired
including real or personal property acquired by her

labor during coverture
contracts
ORS
of
shall not be subject
own
to the debts
or
her husband
108 060 Noninterest
of
one spouse in property
of
other
When
property is
owned by
either husband or wife
the
other has no interest therein which can be the subject

contract between
same
them
husband or wife who

except as provided in
ORS
or such interest as will
liable for the contracts
108 080
Civil
or liabilities
is not the
ORS
owner
make
of
the
of either the
of the property
108 040
remedies between spouses in respect
separate property Should either the husband or wife obtain
of
possession or control of property belonging to the other either
may
before or after marriage the owner of the property
maintain an action therefor
same
or for any right growing out of the
same manner and
in the
same
to the
extent as
they
if
were unmarried
ORS
108 090 Conveyances
spouses
creation
validation
and
conveyance
same
2
to or in favor of the other is valid to the
extent as between
When
other persons
a husband or wife conveys
undivided
one half
undivided
half
entirety
of
and
to the other
and
to create
and
valid
estate
held by
by husband or wife
the purpose of dissolving the estate
ORS
estate in
to the other of his
them by
by entirety
dissolves the estate
heretofore executed
an
by the entirety
conveyance from husband or wife
an
like
there are used
wife hold the real property
in the conveyance
or her interest in
an
any real property and retains a
in such conveyance
said husband
described
between
by either
transfer or lien executed
words indicating an intention
liens
of prior dissolutions
husband or wife
and
transfers
dissolution of estates by entireties
entirety is
All deeds
to the other for
by entirety are valid
108 100 Husband and wife as attorney in
fact for
each other
One spouse may
constitute the other his or her attorney
in fact to control
sell
and convey
mortgage or bar dower
or curtesy for their mutual benefit
and may revoke
same
same manner
to the
same
extent
and
in the
the
as other
persons
ORS
108 110 Petition
for
support
spouse and children
of
rules
5 The provisions
where
it
is the
of this section
apply equally
husband making application
to cases
for
a support
order
Community
o
ORS
of
Property Matters
108 510 Revocation
of election to
Community Property Law
1 Notwithstanding
Laws 1943
Law
of
1943
known
come under terms
1943 fee
any repeal
440
Oregon
Community
Property
of chapter
as the Oregon
any husband and wife who elected
under the terms thereof

filing
of
may revoke
such
come
to
election
upon
in the office of the Secretary of State a notice of
their desire to revoke such election in the following
form
REVOCATION OF ELECTION
TO COME UNDER THE

OREGON COMMUNITY
PROPERTY LAW CHAPTER
OREGON LAWS 1943
KNOW
440
ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS
and
That we
hereby state and represent that we are
husband and wife that we reside in

Oregon and our post
City of
County
address is
office
No
Street
we do hereby revoke our
that
election filed in
the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Oregon
on the
day
of
to avail ourselves of the
Oregon Laws 1943
provisions of chapter 440
Oregon Community Property
being the
Law
STATE OF OREGON
ss
County
of
BE
IT
REMEMBERED
before
for said
me
that on this
the undersigned
day
county and state personally appeared
named
and
his wife
who
be the identical persons described
executed
the
in
are
the within
known
and who
and acknowledged
the within instrument
to
me
Notary Public
ORS
to
me
to
executed
that they
same
My
o
of
a notary public in and
108 530 Removal
of
for
Oregon
commission expires
community
property status by
agreement
Community
between
property acquired during coverture
July 5 1947
converted
and
April 11
and
may be
1949
into property held as tenants in
common
or by
entirety or as the separate property of either spouse by
agreement in writing evidencing
an
such intent signed by
both husband and wife 1
ORS
108 550 Reliance
spouse
Notwithstanding
1947
person
on spouse
right to deal
with property in
name
any provisions of chapter 525
or any provision
may
rely
and
of
shall
ORS
be
Oregon Laws
108 520 to 108 550
fully
protected
in
any other
so doing
upon the
of the husband
right
dispose of or otherwise
name
in
ORS Chapter
109
such manner
control
deal with property standing in his or her
by law
that
he or she would be
statutes
manage
or the wife to receive
but
entitled
for the provisions
of said
so to deal therewith
Parent and Child Rights and
Relationships
Parent and Child Relationship
o ORS 109 070
Establishing paternity
2 The paternity
1 a
or c
a child established under subsection
not be challenged
husband or wife
ORS
challenged
in
The
an
action
paternity
by a person other than the
as long as the
married and cohabiting

consent
may be
by the husband or wife
or proceeding
may
of
of this section
husband and wife

and
unless the husband
are
wife
to the challenge
109 103 Proceeding
to determine custody or support
of child
If
a child
is
born
an unmarried woman and
to
ORS
paternity has been established under

child is born to a married
husband and the
ORS
under
proceeding
man
man
by a
109 070
or
if
other than her
s paternity has been established
109 070 either parent

to
may initiate
determine the custody
time with
parenting
woman
civil
or support of or
the child
Filiation Proceedings
ORS
109 124 Definitions
used in
ORS
109 124
to
for
ORS
109 230
109 124 to 109 230 As
unless the context
requires
otherwise
Child born out of wedlock
unmarried
woman
means a
or to a married
child born to
an
woman by a man
other than her husband

3
Respondent
more
persons
wedlock
the
may include
who may be
husband
of
have a child born out

child born out of wedlock
child
who may be born
but
is not limited to
one or
the father of a child born out of
of
woman who has

wedlock
the
may
the mother of a
woman
pregnant with a
out of wedlock
appointed and acting guardian
or
or the duly
of the child
or conservator
of the child s estate
109 125
Who may initiate proceedings
2 Proceedings
verified
contain
petition
shall be initiated by the filing
petition of the initiating
party
The
parties
of
a duly
petition shall
party is one of those specified in
the initiating
If
subsection
B The name
or
of the
of this section
mother s husband
the
if
child is alleged to be a child born to a
woman
married
by a
man
other than her
husband
b
subsection
specified in
of this section
B The name
man
party is a
the initiating
If
of the
mother s husband
the
if
child is alleged to be a child born to a
married
woman
by a
man
other than her
husband
Insemination
Artificial
109 239 Rights and obligations
from
rights and obligations of donor of
insemination
artificial
of children resulting
semen
If
the donor of
the
mother
semen used
in artificial
insemination is not
husband
1 Such donor shall have no right obligation or

interest with respect to a child born as a result of
the artificial
and
insemination
child born as a result of the artificial
insemination shall have no right obligation

interest with respect to such donor
109 243 Relationship
insemination to mother s husband
and
obligation
insemination
legal intents
The
1977
as
the child
if
the husband consented
to the
had been
and
686
rights
of artificial
the mother s husband shall be the
and purposes
artificial
relationship
between a child born as a result
and
legitimately conceived by the mother

if
from
of child resulting
or
same
to all
naturally
and
the mother s husband
performance
of artificial
insemination
Adoption
o
109 326 Consent when husband not father
If
the mother of a child
conception
was married
or birth of the child
determined pursuant
to
ORS
and
it
at the time of the
has been
109 070 or
judicially
determined that her husband at such time or times was

not the father of the child
waiver
proceedings
If
the husband s authorization or
is not required in adoption
concerning
the custody
court or other
of the child
paternity of the child has not been determined
determination of nonpaternity
having adoption
juvenile
divorce
may be made by
or juvenile
any court
court jurisdiction
The
or affidavit of the mother or the husband
testimony
or another person with knowledge

constitutes competent
proceeding
court
of the facts
making
evidence before the
the determination
3 Before making the determination
of nonpaternity
petitioner shall serve on the husband a
and
true copy of a motion
judgment
should not be entered
jurisdiction that the
father of the child
since the child s birth or
husband
The husband
When
to the support of the child
manner
of this section
A summons
ORCP
provided in
provided in subsection
or tried
the petitioner is required to serve the husband
under subsection
of
is the
repeatedly has contributed
with a summons and a motion and order
in the
if
b The child resided with the husband at any time
to contribute
summons and a
show cause why a
order to
of nonpaternity
the
a There has been a determination by any court

competent
filed in the
to
service
show cause
must be made
D and E
except as
of this section
under subsection
must
of this section
contain
statement that
the husband fails to
if
and
written answer to the motion
cause within the time provided

further notice
and
order to
the court
but not limited
show
without
in the husband s absence
take any action that is authorized by law

to entering
a judgment
file
may
including
of
nonpaternity on the date the answer is required or
on a future date
b
A
o
statement that
A The
husband must
file
with the court a
written answer to the motion
show cause
or
publication
order to
within 30 days after the date on
which the husband
summons
and
if
is served
service
is
with the
made by
or posting under
ORCP
within 30 days from the date of last

publication
or posting
In the answer
the court
telephone
and
must inform
the petitioner of the husband s
number
number and
the husband
or contact
telephone
the husband s current residence
mailing or contact
as the husband s
and
notice
that
order to
the court
to address the
show cause and
to
and
C May
schedule
the petition
other hearings related to
and may order
the husband to
appear personally
notice that the husband has the right to be
represented by
an
attorney
statement that the husband has the
responsibility to maintain contact
husband s attorney and
advised
of the
husband who
motion and order
show cause
order to
which the husband

service
If
or contact
is served
with the summons or

or posting under
publication
if
ORCP
7
or
the husband shall inform the
telephone
ORS
number and
current address
25 011
and
of
appointed
the court determines that the husband is
financially eligible
the court shall appoint
an
attorney to
represent the husband at state expense
If
the husband files
subsection
made on
an answer
of this section
as required under
the court
by oral order
the record or by written order provided to the
husband in person or mailed
to the
address provided by the husband
a Inform the husband

purpose
of the next
the motion
petition
motion and
to the
the husband requests the assistance
counsel
shall
the petitioner of the husband s telephone
as defined in
this section
within 30 days after the date on
In the answer
and
number
with a summons and a
show cause under
within 30 days from the date of last publication
posting
court
made by
is
with the
keep the attorney
husband s whereabouts
is served
to
to
with the court a written answer
file
if
the adoption petition
Will order the husband to appear
personally
state
home
a hearing
Will schedule
appropriate
same
the husband answers the motion
if
show cause
motion and order
address in the
and
husband at the
shall
of the
time place and
hearing or hearings related
order to
show cause
to
or the adoption
b Require the husband
to
appear personally at the
and
next hearing or hearings related to the motion

order to
show cause
appear as ordered
motion and order
petition
show cause
to
or the adoption
by law
may take
any action that
is
including but not limited to
a judgment
on the date
of nonpaternity
specified in the order or on a future date
to the
without further notice and in
the husband s absence
entering
the husband fails to
if
any hearing related
for
the court
authorized
and
or the adoption petition
Inform the husband that
without
the consent of the husband
If
a husband
6
in subsection
hearing related
a written answer as required
fails to file
of this section
to the
or fails to appear for a
motion and order
to
show cause
or
the petition as directed by court order under this section
without further notice
the court
may take
the husband s absence

authorized
judgment
by law
to the
husband and in
any action that
is
including but not limited to entering
of nonpaternity
10 There shall be
proof to enable the court to
sufficient
grant the relief sought without notice
to the
husband
provided that the affidavit of the mother of the child

the husband or of another person with knowledge
facts
other competent
evidence
a That the mother
and
determined
and
to
judicially
That the child has not resided with the husband
d That
the husband has not contributed
contribute
ORS
husband under subsection
and
109 070
order to
service
of this section
the husband s consent
the child unless the husband has
b or
of
show cause on
the
is not
authorization or
is not required in adoption proceedings
subsection
or tried to
to the support of the child
Notwithstanding
waiver
of the
be the father
summons and a motion and
10
of conception
b That the husband has not been
required
not cohabiting
that the husband is not the father of the
child
11
was
of the child
with her husband at the time

child
of
of the
states or the court finds from
filed in the proceeding
met
concerning
the requirements
of this section
of
12
husband who was not cohabiting with the mother
at the time of the child s conception
has the primary
responsibility to protect the husband s rights
Enforcement
o
ORS
109 804 Immediate physical custody
allowed exceptions
of child
spousal privilege not allowed in
certain proceedings
privilege
between
relationship of
may
against disclosure of communications
and a
spouses
defense of immunity based on the
husband and wife
or parent
not be invoked in a proceeding
under
and
ORS
child
109 774
to
109 827
ORS
Chapter 136 Criminal Trials

Competency
o
ORS
136 655 Husband or wife as witness

1 Except
section
in
husband
accused
neither
criminal actions in
all
is the party
competent
witness
the
accused
and when
husband
husband nor wife
except as provided in
which
the wife is the party

witness
but
in such cases shall be
testify
ORS
in such cases
40 255
Offenses Against Family
ORS
163 565 Evidence
of paternity
confidentiality
between husband and wife not applicable

competent
No
provision of law prohibiting the disclosure
between husband
of confidential
communications
and wife apply
to prosecutions for criminal
husband
or wife is a competent
compellable witness for or against
ORS Chapter
Theft
spouses
and compellable witnesses
nonsupport
11
the
Chapter 163 Offenses Against Persons
of this
the wife is a
a competent
is
compelled or allowed to
ORS
as provided in subsection
164
Offenses Against Property
and Related
Offenses
164 035 Defenses
to theft
either party
and
It
is
a defense
that of the
that the property involved
defendant
s spouse
were not living together
unless the parties
husband and wife and
as
were living in separate abodes
was
at the
time of the
alleged theft
Mail Related Offenses

o
164 164 Defense

applicability
under
ORS
of
in prosecution
ORS
164 162
164 162
it
is
under
ORS
164 162
In a prosecution
a defense
that the
defendant
acted under an honest claim of right in that
The
property involved
defendant
s spouse
living together
as
was
that of the
unless the parties were not
husband and wife and were
living in separate abodes at the time of the alleged

offense
ORS Chapter
Personal and Corporate Income or
315
Excise Tax Credits
Temporary Provisions Relating

o
ORS
to Diesel
Engines
315 465 Biofuels and fuel blends

9
husband and wife who
for a taxable year

tax credit that
file
separate returns
may each claim a
share of the
would have been allowed on a
return in proportion to the contribution
ORS
315 469
7
Biodiesel
in
home
for a taxable year

tax credit that
used
file
of each
heating
separate returns
may each claim a
share of the
joint
of each
Health
ORS
315 610 Long term care insurance

5
In the case of a credit allowed under this
for purposes of
section
ORS
chapter
returns for a taxable year
12
joint
316
file
separate
may each claim a
share of the tax credit that
would have been
allowed on a
joint return in proportion to the
contribution
of each
Culture
315 675 Trust for Cultural Development
Account
contributions
In the case of a credit allowed under this
for purposes of
section
ORS
chapter
returns for a taxable year
316
file
separate
may each claim a
share of the tax credit that
ORS Chapter
316
would have been
allowed on a
joint return in proportion to the
contribution
of each
Personal Income Tax
General Provisions
o
ORS
Amount
316 042
of tax
where
joint
return
used
In the case of a joint return of
pursuant to
316 367
ORS
the tax
316 122
husband and wife
or pursuant to
imposed by
ORS
ORS
316 037
be twice the tax which would be imposed

taxable
income were
this section
cut in half
the
For purposes of
a return of a head of household or a
surviving spouse
as defined in subsections
and
of the Internal
Revenue Code
shall
be treated as a
joint return of
husband and
of section
wife
Credits
316 116 Credit for

alternative
10
alternative
fuel vehicle
energy device or
rules
for a taxable year

tax credit that
file
separate returns
may each claim a
share of the
13
if
shall
joint
of each
However
a husband
may claim
principal residence
same amount
Taxation
or wife living in a separate

the tax credit in the
as permitted a single person
of Nonresidents
ORS
316 122 Separate or
joint determination of
income for husband and wife
If
wife
the federal taxable
return
income
wife
which
full
part year resident
is
their taxable
income
wife
in
income
full
income
ORS
in
4 For purposes
14
is
full
used in
ORS
taxable
income
of
year resident
and
the other a
joint federal
on
file
their joint
pursuant
husband and
and
the other a
joint federal
in the state shall be
unless they elect to

case their tax
on
file
their joint
this state
pursuant
3
of computing
husband and wife under

spouses
pursuant
husband and
this state
income
income
which
316 037
of
case their tax
be determined in
shall
their joint
determined
joint return
in this state shall be
determined on a
their taxable
separately
file
one being a
return
income
determined on a
the federal taxable
is
on
this state
year resident
which
316 037
nonresident
to
case their tax
be determined in
shall
ORS
If
determined
joint return
joint federal
one being a
to
husband and
in this state shall be
be determined in
316 037
separately
income
the federal taxable
return
in
shall
ORS
If
determined on a
determined
joint return
is
their taxable
separately
of
one being a part year resident and the other
a nonresident
to
income
the tax of a
this section
if
one of the
year resident individual
316 037
derived
or
that
from Oregon
then as
spouse s
sources is
that
spouse s
entire federal taxable
income
defined in the laws of the United States

modifications
additions
in this chapter
and
5 The
provisions of
to joint returns apply
income
ORS
if
Payments
ORS
Refunds
imposed by
except
the federal
If
income nor deductions
income
tax liabilities
on a
are determined
they shall
file
shall
be
husband
this chapter
and
joint
and
several
of Estimated Taxes
ORS
316 567 Joint declaration

effect
liability
1 Except
of
husband and wife
on nonjoint returns
rules
as provided in subsection
a husband and wife
section
declaration jointly under
316 589 The
of this
may make a
ORS
of the
liability
making such a
of
joint federal return
under
joint return
their tax liabilities
even though one of
that
and wife
with respect
joint return
this chapter
the spouses has neither gross
Payment
respect
316 367 Joint return by husband and wife
to the tax
316 367 with
year nonresidents
husband and wife may make a
taxation
both husband and wife are
part year residents or full
Returns
subtractions provided
other laws of this state
applicable to personal
and
with the
316 557
single
to
husband and wife

and
declaration shall be joint
several
husband and
wife
may
not
make a
joint
declaration
If
either the
husband
nonresident alien
If
a husband and wife
but not a
may
make a
joint declaration
joint return for the taxable year
husband and wife may
15
or the wife is a
agree
and
in such
manner
the
as they
after giving notice of the
agreement to the Department of Revenue

a
Treat the estimated tax for the year as the
estimated tax of either the
husband
wife
If
a husband and wife
agree
to agree
fail
notify the department of the
manner
which
make a
they
declaration but not a joint return

shall
by
314 835
the department
314 840
they
joint
the payments
ORS
Notwithstanding
314 991
the department
disclose to either the
husband
or the wife the
upon which an
was made under
tax
Modifications
which
or
information
ORS
in
to
fail
between them according to rules
be allocated
adopted
or
to the treatment of estimated tax for a
taxable year for
or of the
may
allocation of estimated
this section
Income
of Taxable
316 690 Foreign income taxes

2 The deduction
by
taxes provided
for foreign country

this section
shall
income
be limited as
follows
In the case of a
husband and wife
separate tax returns
ORS
limited to
1 500
shall
in
be
of taxable
rules
In addition
taxable
shall
to the modifications to federal
income contained
in this chapter
be added to or subtracted
taxable
from
there
federal
income
In the case of the following
standard
deduction
subparagraph
shall
16
described
of this subsection
316 695 Additional modifications
income
paragraph
sum
the
filing
be zero
the
referred to in
of this paragraph
husband
or wife filing
separate return
where
the other
spouse has claimed itemized

deductions under subparagraph
of this paragraph
In the case of a
husband and
the
wife filing
amount added
shall
be in the amount of any federal income taxes
amount provided
in excess of the
for
individual taxpayers under paragraphs
of this subsection
amount
less the
to
of any
refund of federal taxes previously accrued

for
which a
In the case of a
Records
amount
added
to be
husband and wife
filing
under subsection
in the case of a
separate returns
of this section
Vital Statistics
rules
persons required to
If
birth
Unrecorded Births
of Paternity
432 206 Compulsory
on
amount added under
with the computation of
consistent
ORS
filing
be computed in a
shall
of Births Certification of
registration of births
file
the mother is not married at the time of

the
name
of the father shall not be entered
the certificate
unless
The mother was married
cohabiting
conception
name
17
husband and wife
this subsection
Voluntary Acknowledgment
o
received
the
the
432
was
manner
ORS Chapter
tax benefit
shall
with her husband

in
which
to
at the
case the
be entered on the
and
time of
husband
certificate
provided
that the
husband was
not impotent
or sterile
In the case of a child born to a married
as a result of artificial
insemination
consent of her husband

be entered on the
ORS Chapter
the
woman
with the
husband
name
shall
certificate
Regulation of Medicine Podiatry and
677
Acupuncture
Artificial
Insemination
ORS
677 365 Consent required
of the
Center
for
and
if
Statistics
with State Registrar
notice to physician
without her prior written request and consent

she
consent
is
married
a child
the use of
semen
husband
is
a copy
born who
may have
a donor who
of
of the request
under subsection
physician
the prior written request
is not
and
of this section
who performs
been conceived by
the
woman
consent
required
insemination with
Statistics
state registrar shall prescribe the form of reporting
3 The information
filed
under subsection
shall be sealed by the state registrar
upon an
only
who performs
of this section
and may be opened
order of a court of competent
the physician
If
shall be filed by the
the artificial
the State Registrar of the Center for Health
and
her husband
of
2 Whenever
The
upon a
insemination shall not be performed
Artificial
woman
Health
filing
the artificial
jurisdiction
insemination
does not deliver the child conceived as a result of the use

of
semen
is
the duty of the
of
a donor who
is not
the
woman and
consented pursuant
woman
the husband
1
to subsection
who performs
be relieved
subsection
from lack
c
ORS Chapter
726
liability
for
of this section
of notice
if
ORS
The
with
the noncompliance
to the physician
Pawnbrokers
726 990 Criminalpenalties
to
insemination shall
noncompliance
Penalties
18
686
of all
the artificial
it
who
of this section
give that physician notice of the child s birth

physician
husband
results
about the birth
1977
2 Upon
conviction
no
section
license
under subsection
shall
of this
be granted to such person
nor to the husband or wife of such person
ORS Chapter
742
Insurance Policies Generally
Property
and Casualty Policies
Uninsured Motorist Coverage

o
742 504 Required provisions

coverage
of
Every policy required
specified in
ORS
uninsured motorist
to provide the coverage
742 502 shall provide uninsured motorist
coverage that in each instance is no less favorable in any respect

or the beneficiary than
to the insured
were
set forth in the policy
section
However
the following
if
nothing contained in
requires the insurer to reproduce
2 As used in
c
to
provisions
this policy
when
Insured
uninsured
this
in the policy the
particular language of any of the following
provisions
unqualified
motorist coverage
A The named
and
same household
named
insured
means
designated as
insured in the schedule

of the
applied
insured as stated in the
and any person
policy
and when
and
named
while residents
the spouse of any
relatives
of either
provided that neither the relative nor the
spouse
owner
is the
in the policy
and
of
that
a vehicle
if
the
not described
named
as stated in the policy is other than

individual or
insured
an
residents of the
same household
the
are
named
insured shall be only a person so designated

in the schedule
19
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
11 21 2013 1 03 06
Subject
Re
Hello
Sheila
Question
seek
on pleadings
equality
full
The Domestic
ORS
Partnership law in
106 includes language
not cite each one specifically
we
think
list
no doubt
will
immunity
any other law
to
an
in law in a specified
the plaintiffs
that
by
right or benefit granted
to another individual
individual because the individual is or
Any
was
responsibility imposed
by
way
on a domestic partnership
Any
privilege
or court rule policy

spouses
is
in
rules
of marriage and
the following
way
does
it
ORS
the same Oregon laws that
should be equ ally applied
administrative or court
statute
is
granted on equivalent terms
is
is
immunity
way
law or
the individual is or
or was married
policy
common
to
was
or because the individual
law or any other
or was an in law in
is
substantive and procedural
on an
in a domestic partnership or because the individual is or
way
was an
and procedural
substantive
imposed on equivalent terms
was
common
rule policy
was married or because
Any
in a domestic partnership or because the individual is or
related in a specified
common
aws and
laws in Oregon
administrative or court rule
statute
law on an individual because the individual

a specified
all
immunities rights benefits and responsibilities granted or imposed
way
generally identifies
out
are claiming
based on a domestic partnership related in a specified

2
that
calls
leave something out
106 340 Certain privileges

privilege
106
should be able to stipulate generally tha
106 speaks to are the same Oregon laws
exhaustive
ORS
a and unequal equal scheme
attempts to create
an
Sage Teton
PM
all
Plaintiffs
And
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
was
based
right benefit or responsibility granted or imposed
by
statute
administrative
law or any other law to or on a spouse with respect to a child of either of the
granted or imposed on equivalent terms
substantive
and procedural
to or on a partner with respect
to a child of either of the partners
Any
privilege
or court rule policy
former or surviving
Many
does not have the
ORS
238A
on
equivalent terms
substantive
jurisdiction
and the Le
with federal law
to control federal laws or the privileges
of the plan
or a condition
regulations
adopted under the
for other favorable tax treatment

Internal
benefits
children
Revenue
rights
benefits
that
and
and
2007 c 99
Oregon tax laws
and the children of partners
responsibilities
benefit
under
ORS
of the plan
with
under the
a condition
Internal
chapter 238
the plan
if
for tax qualification
Revenue
Code
or
Code
under the Employee Retirement
For purposes of administering
rights
on a
to or
Assembly recognizes
or other employee benefit plan
106 300 to 106 340 do not require the extension of any
subject to federal regulation
administrative
and procedural
gislative
immunities
106 300 to 106 340 do not require or permit the extension of any
or under any other retirement deferred compensation
ORS
statute
related to federal laws
administrator reasonably concludes that the extension of benefits would conflict
by
spouse with respect to a
partner with respect to a child of either of the partners
of the laws of this state are intertwined
responsibilities
or
right benefit or responsibility granted or imposed
law or any other law to or on a former or surviving
of either of the spouses is granted or imposed
child
it
immunity
common
in
benefit
under any employee
benefit
plan that
is
Income Security Act of 19 74
partners in a domestic partnership
a domestic partnership
as are granted to or imposed on spouses
have the
in
same
surviving
privileges
a marriage surviving
partners in a
immunities
spouses
and
their
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

may
This e mail
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
lake
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On Nov
No ce
21 2013
This
intended
at
communica on
a specic
for
should delete
this
any disclosure
PM
12 55
Lea Ann Easton
including
communica on and
and
is
com
dorsayindianlaw
may contain
any a achments
copying
LEaston
privileged or
by law
protected
conde
you are
If
communica on
or the taking
wrote
n al informa on

hereby no ed that
and are
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
we
any a achments
including
inform you that any

is
party any transac
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
avoiding
Code
or
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ii
ce contained
ed
or recom
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
we
ve compiled of various places in Oregon Revised Statutes which
response to your request

inclusive
it
of
does not include
While
agree that
not capture
While
such references
all
of
all
references
we
we
have aempted to capture
in statutes
in
come up
it
Easton LLP
SW
Portland
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
From
Potter
Sheila
mailto sheila
also
potter
doj state or us
in
am
cra
RS
am
husband and wife

not
condent
very place in the statutes
would be aec
with a spula on on this issue
Lea Ann
Suite 440
such reference
seems as though we should be able to
It
forward to hearing your thoughts on
Dorsay
all
to iden fy each and e
Oregon Administra ve Rules which
should be able to
such references
despite our eorts
reference
ted by this
concerned
he
spulaon
li
that
in
the
list
ve aached a
Addi onally
ga on
that
aaching a
list
list
Sheila
may
to cover this issue but look
is
Sent
November
Tuesday
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Katharine
Subject
Lake
19 2013 8 59 AM
Perriguey
VON TER STEGGE
Question on pleadings
Lake and Lea Ann
In a couple of places in the complaint
and or
unconstitutional
calling
there
Oregon
describing
35
restrict
husband
only
we
complaint
It
would want
34
wife
12
relief
Ordinarily
re not
plaintiffs
we
can incorporate
of everything
in light
woman
state statutes
all
Oregon
22
to specifically
all
those laws are
other
Oregon
which
refer
statutes that
to
husband
exclude gay
and wife
discrimin atory marriage laws
Oregon statutes
to the extent they
referring
and
26
all
to marriage and
30
mit marriage to heterosexuals
li
marriage to hu
the state statutes they are
that
sband and wife
Request for
That seems
as a stipulation
seeking to invalidate
the final order can be defin
going to ask for an amended complaint
into our Answer
that
sex marriage
list
and ensures
all
statutes
Oregon
33
allegin
Oregon
statutes that limit
way impede same
helps focus the argument
We
man and
other laws
See Complt
marriage
marriage to heterosexual couples
and
37 38 and request for
relief
civil
marriage to only a
a reference to
for them to be enjoined
and lesbian people from equal access to

by implication
is
like
here
but
the quickest
can you provide
way
in
the
and easy to implement
itive
to
all
us with a
list
that
get on the same page
Thanks
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
Oregon Laws Conferring Rights
Obligations
on
Husbands and
Wives
docx
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Sheila
CC
Katharine
Sent
11 21
Subject
RE
Thanks
I
Lake Perriguey
was
Boy
thinking
or enjoin
wives
that
there
Like
the
Which
desired
the
t
than
result
wife
equal
If
that
don
pleadings
rather
than
the
laws
would
another
application
so that
issue
in that
benefits
s within
Court ordering it
the
that
there
refer
to
to
apply
relief
equally to
requested
laws
that
in the
suit
and
That
one
same
doesn
specifically
it
may
Court s authority to
sua sponte
seeks
to
marriage or to
grant
might require
invalidate
husbands
for marital communications
of
the
Complaint specifically
laws
privilege
belongs
aren
privilege
of
the
the
all
the
be for the
that
it
in there
that
include
invalidating
s something
in the
artifacts
presume
guess raises
compelling
odd
in terms of
rather
Sage Teton
on pleadings
Question
are some
more
which
Lea Ann Easton
VON TER STEGGE

2013 1 29 48 PM
and
my guess is
sex spouses
ask for an order
refer
to
husband
imagine that
it
or deny
relief
that
an amendment
and
should be
to
the
Complaint
But
in terms of
Lake
to
and
declare
Answer
agree
doesn
33
and
etc
the
the
Ann
on the
incorporate
list
that
of
Thursday
same
Oregon
note
into
then
the
think
pleadings
the
laws
we
that
existing Complaint
that
you are asking
could
make
that
way
right to
amend
to
from the
and
that
add
to
benefits
unconstitutional
think
if
laws
Does
that
you have
the
list
sense
you
the
an exhibit
make
be crafted to allow for there being

list
a stipulation that Paragraph
sex couples
should we
Perriguey
mailto
November
Lea Ann Easton

Potter Sheila H
Subject
Re
And
to
date
any other
26
identified
laws
that
of
marriage in Oregon
But
it
s important to
which
know
our
I
something that
Nos
3
5
22
not
Court
to
have
when
it
ones
21
get
on Judge
lake
law
2013
1 03 PM
Katharine
Question
seek
Domestic
rules of
works
VON TER
McShane
s calendar
for a Rule
16 conference
com
STEGGE
Sage
Teton
on pleadings
full
equality
Partnership
marriage and
in Oregon
should be able
Oregon
to
exhaustive
106
340
law
that
the
will
way
a and
it
generally
no doubt
Any privilege
includes
create
plaintiffs
Certain privileges
imposed
to
following
stipulate
list
in ORS 106
attempts
in the
laws
And
does
that
language
unequal
not
the
cite
same
that
equal
each
Oregon
generally
scheme
one
identifies laws
ORS 106
calls
specifically
laws
that
ORS 106
out
think
speaks
and
all
we
to
are the
are claiming should be equally applied

leave
immunities
immunity
something
rights
out
benefits
right or benefit
and
responsibilities
granted
by statute
granted
or
administrative
or
court rule
was married
policy
common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is
or because the individual is or was an in law in a specified way to another
individual
is
because
individual
was
2
the
based
granted
Any responsibility
equivalent
is
or was
terms
terms
related
imposed by statute
substantive
and
procedural
partnership or because
in a specified
administrative
way
to
or court
to
the
rule
and
procedural
in a specified
way
the
to
on an individual
individual
another
is
because
or was
individual
is
or
individual
policy
common
law
or because the
is imposed on
the
based
or
an individual
individual
another
because the individual is or was married

in a specified way to another individual
partnership or because
related
substantive
in a domestic
partnership
on an individual
or was an in law
in a domestic
partnership
on equivalent
on a domestic
any other law

individual is
was
are
all
Plaintiffs
same
enjoin
in the
the
table
Lake
laws
to
wholly
setting out
ORS numbers
you reserve
declaring
Sent
The
that
to
barring
From
Hello
be invalidated
that language can

up in the initial
refer
an unrelated
To
Cc
to
e mail us a letter
and
but
comes to
sought
unconstitutional
etc
effect
laws
could
with Lea Ann

t get picked
others
On
Lea
individual
on a domestic
is
or
or
Any privilege
administrative
respect
to
immunity
or court
a child
substantive
and
of
right
rule
either of
procedural
benefit
policy
to
the
or responsibility
common
spouses
law
is
granted
or any other
granted
law
to
or imposed by statute
or on a spouse with
or imposed on equivalent
or on a partner with respect
to
a child
of
terms
either of
the
partners
4
Any privilege
administrative
surviving
immunity
or court
terms
respect
a child
to
Many
of
the
laws
Assembly recognizes
privileges
6
ORS 106
300
238
benefit
plan
would
of
to
if
conflict
340
the
plan
tax treatment
under
Internal
ORS 106
benefit
Security
8
300
plan
to
that
Act
of
99
granted
or on a former
have
the
and
require
with federal
jurisdiction
to
responsibilities
or permit the
reasonably
concludes
the
for tax qualification

plan
106
do not
subject
to
or
or imposed on
or surviving
partner with
law
Legislative
under
require
federal
the
the
of
Internal
related
to
of
of
that
extension
Employee
under
ORS
employee
of
benefits
for other
or regulations
any benefit
the
under
or other
or a condition
Code
or the
laws
any benefit
the
plan
laws
federal
compensation
the
under
the
federal
Revenue
extension
regulation
and
control
extension
administrator
of
administering Oregon
the
same
tax laws
partnership and
privileges
or imposed on spouses
James H
Works
1906
adopted
any employee
Retirement
Income
partners in a domestic
the
immunities
in a marriage
children
rights
surviving
of
partnership
benefits
spouses
and
and
responsibilities
their children
as are
2007
SW
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Portland
Street
Oregon
1928
334
2340
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
97205
227
http
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
works
CONSERVE
Nov
21
LEaston
Notice
2013
lake
at
the
law
sender
works
Lea
communication
are not
intended
recipient
and
any attachments
of
and
delete
this e mail and
any attachments
and
you should delete

and
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
dorsayindianlaw
individual
are hereby
this communication
information
by return
all
copies
the
to
and
intended
lake
law
attachments
Easton
LEaston
including
for a specific
distribution
or privileged
Ann
com mailto
intended
materials
com
immediately
com
information
the
works
RESOURCES
12 55 PM
dorsayindianlaw
This
law
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
On
is
Lake
Law
to
spouses
deferred
partnership have
granted
or on a former
retirement
Code
340
to
any other
Revenue
is
to
the
or imposed by statute
law
1974
For purposes
surviving
of
either of
are intertwined
benefits
with a condition
granted
or any other
partners
not
do not
or under
favorable
the
does
rights
106
or 238A
it
of
law
procedural
the
this state
that
or responsibility
common
a child
and
either of
immunities
chapter
to
substantive
of
benefit
policy
spouse with respect
equivalent
5
right
rule
or the
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
com
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
be used
promoting
herein
Sheila
with IRS
regulations
for the
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
party
any U S
is
under
not
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
ve
attached
reference
such
reference
statutes
it
a list
husband
does
ve
compiled
am not
references
various
to
confident
our efforts to
include
of
wife in response
in ORS
despite
not
we
and
in Oregon
While
that
is
identify each
in Oregon
places
your request
the
and
list
Revised
we
have
inclusive
every
place
in the
Administrative
Rules
which
Statutes
attempted
of
all
which
to
such
statutes
capture
all
references
in
Additionally
also would
be affected
by
this litigation
While
agree
concerned
that
that
should be able
thoughts
Lea
Suite
to
craft
503
Easton
440
the
to
come
may not
up with a stipulation
capture
stipulation
to
all
cover
of
such
on this issue
references
this issue
but
look
It
am
seems as though
forward
to
hearing
we
your
790
LLP
1 SW
OR
Columbia
97258
9060
From
Potter
Sent
Tuesday
Ann
Sheila
To
Lea
Cc
Katharine
Easton
Lake
Lea
a couple
laws
other
Oregon
Lake
Oregon
referring
statutes
to
the
12
to
we
would
like
they
in light
quickest
gay and
way
refer
to
to
helps
See
and
wife
alleging
access
and
to
couples
and
husband
and
all
34
35
all
civil
marriage laws
33
wife
30
by implication
s discriminatory
husband
that
Complt
37
wife
Oregon
all
38
and
Request
state
request
fo
for
relief
sex marriage
specifically
focus
the
list
the
argument
state
and
statutes
they
ensures
that
complaint
here
are seeking
the
final
order
implement
going
incorporate
all
laws
heterosexual
marriage to
that
we
to
heterosexuals
impede same
It
other
be enjoined
from equal
Oregon
only
everything
to
husband
22
marriage to
limit
to
lesbian people
describing
plaintiffs
easy to
of
a reference
for them
a woman
that
complaint
us with a list
the
limit
statutes
and
is
restricting marriage to
want
in the
there
or calling
which
bar or in any way
be definitive
re not
exclude
statutes
extent
that
and
marriage and
Oregon
invalidate
provide
complaint
only a man and
statutes
statutes
can
that
Oregon
26
Ordinarily
or us
Perriguey
in the
statutes
5
laws
doj state
STEGGE
places
marriage to
potter
8 59 AM
on pleadings
restrict
relief
sheila
2013
marriage
all
19
Ann
of
those
mailto
VON TER
Question
and
November
Subject
We
a list
on it
Portland
to
should be able
Ann
Dorsay
In
we
attaching
can
get
on the
to
same
ask for an amended

into
our Answer
as a stipulation
but
can
That
you
seems
page
Thanks
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
Oregon
Laws
Conferring
Rights
Obligations on
Husbands
and
Wives
docx
VON TER STEGGE

H
11 21 2013 1 29 56 PM
out of office notification RE Question
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
Subject
am
Sheila
currently out of the office
contact
Amy
Goodale
at
I will
return to the office
988 3138
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
on pleadings
October 16th
If
you n eed immediate assistance
please
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Sent
11 22 2013 4 33 11
Subject
Geiger
Sheila
This communication
Notice
intended
for
Katharine
including
specific
and are hereby
To comply
communication
purpose
of
My
is strictly
we
any attachments
to another
is
is
by law
protected
you are not the
If
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
any transaction
party
not intended
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
and Kate
assistant has
been
in
contact
at
some
me
confirm to
point
so
know
that
on
we
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Portland
we
SW
OR
503 790 9060
It
Columbia
97258
on
it
will
first
be a conference
whether
we
by Sheila
will
the Rule
16
appearance
conference
Would
would agree to forego
are going to forgo the
and
call
and we need
to propose
each of you please
let
me know
few weeks of December
discussed
we
the letter requested
are working
Thank you
Suite 440
the
that you concur that
are working
anticipated
about scheduling
with the court
dates and times you are available
We
and
that
it
contain
dates that the attorneys are available
Also
and purpose
communication
IRS regulations
including
avoiding
recommending
Sheila
with
this
notified
may
any attachments
individual
Notice 2
VON TER STEGGE
PM
you should delete
recipient
attachments
get
it
earlier this
initial
discovery
week
out to Sheila within
was
out of the
office
the next
Can each
discovery
requirements
day
or so
of
of you
FRCP 26 a
a day
longer than
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Katharine
Sent
11 24 2013 8 46 03
Subject
Re
Thanks
Agree to
Available
Sheila
VON TER STEGGE

PM
Geiger
skip 26 a
pretty broadly
in December
12 2 am
12 3 pm
12 4
11 12
12 5
12 6
from 10 on
9 11
2 5
3 5
12 9
am
12 10 pm
12 11 am
12 12 pm
12 13 any old time
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department
On
Nov
22
LEaston
Notice
2013
of
at
Justice
4 33 PM
dorsayindianlaw
This
Lea
Ann
com mailto
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
any attachments
distribution
prohibited
of
Notice
comply
To
contained
cannot
for the
ii
promoting
herein
and
Sheila
My
and
are hereby
or the
regulations
including
purpose
marketing
any attachments
individual
this communication
with IRS
dorsayindianlaw
and
you should delete
be used
Easton
LEaston
of
or recommending
may contain
purpose
notified
that
of
to
at
each
of
of
has been
some
next
of
in contact
than
you
Easton
LLP
know
to
on the
Ann
Dorsay
FRCP
day or so
Thank
Lea
point
are working
day longer
protected
another
or shred
any disclosure
inform you that

penalties
and
any U S
is
not
under
party
based
is
federal
any transaction
you
or
strictly
tax advice
to
Internal
If
the
copying
on it
intended
the
or confidential
by law
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
with the
court
about
scheduling
It
and
16 conference
and
will be a conference
call
times you are available the
the
Rule
we
first
December
you confirm
requirements
We
privileged
Kate
assistant
Also
is
any action
need to propose dates that the attorneys are available

appearance
Would each of you please let me know dates
few weeks
and
any attachments
avoiding
wrote
this communication
taking
we
com
that
me that
26
we
discussed
you concur
whether
that
we
we
would
are going
to
agree
to
forgo
forego
the
discovery
initial
Can
discovery
letter
anticipated
requested
so we
by Sheila
are working
earlier this week

on it
and
will
get
I
it
was
out
out
to
of
the
Sheila
office
within
a
the
Suite
440
Portland
503
790
1 SW
OR
9060
Columbia
97258
VON TER STEGGE

H
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
11 25 2013 8 42 55
Subject
Re
The County
also agrees
Dec 2 3 and 4
my
are
Sheila
AM
Geiger
to waive
initial
As
disclosures
My
best bet for the conference
the 3rd except for meetings from 10
11 and 1 2
in
far
as scheduling
calendar
am
going to be
empty on the 2nd
is
a pinch both of these meetings
in
Guatemala
and the 4th
can be
Dec
and mostly
5 16
free
on
rescheduled
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Sun Nov
Thanks
24
2013
at
8 46
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
wrote
doj state or us
Agree to skip 26 a
Available
12 2
am
12 3
pm
pretty broadly
in
December
12 4 11 12 3 5
12 5 from 10 on
12 6 9 11
2 5
am
12 9
12 10
pm
12 11
am
12 12
pm
12 13 any old time
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On Nov
22 2013
LEaston
at
Justice
4 33
PM
com
dorsayindianlaw
This communication
Notice
copying
mailto LEaston
including
and purpose
delete this communication

disclosure
Lea Ann Easton

dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
and
is
protected
may
by law
com
wrote
contain privileged
If
you are not the
or con
fidential
and or shred the materials and any attachments and are here by
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
with
including
IRS
regulations
any attachments
we
is
inform you that any
federal tax advice
and cannot be
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
avoiding
under the
penalties
any transaction
Internal
or matter addressed
Code
Revenue
or
promoting
ii
or recommending
marketing
to another
party
herein
Sheila and Kate
My
has been in contact with the court
assistant
dates that the attorneys are available
know
Also
at
some
confirm to
We
will
It
dates and times you are available the
me
point I
that
know
that
you concur
we
that
be a conference
few weeks
first
discussed
we
about scheduling the Rule 16 confere nce and
whether
we
call
we
so
are working on
it
will
get
it
ould
each of you please
Can each
would agree to forego discovery
are going to forgo the
and
need to propose
let
me
of December
are working on the letter requested by Sheila earlier this
anticipated
appearance
we
initial
week
discovery requirements
was
out of the office
of
FRCP
of you
26
a day longer
than I
out to Sheila within the next day or so
Thank you
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Suite 440
Portland
LLP
Easton
1
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
11 27 2013 10 20 41
Subject
Fonberg
Attachments
In
No ce
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
any disclosure
this
Sheila
Katharine
Decision
the Matter of Margarent
including
Fonberg
communica on and
and
pdf
may contain
any a achments
copying
VON TER STEGGE
AM
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on

hereby no ed that
and are
of any ac
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
avoiding
including
any a achments
on
or
ma er addressed
thought you might be interested in
Lea Ann
inform you that any

is
the
S federal tax advi
party any transac
we
Code
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
or recom
ed
of
Fonberg
from the Ninth
Circuit s
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
Maer
for
in this
Execu ve Council
FOR PUBLICATION
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
EDR No 13 002
ORDER
THE MATTER OF
MARGARET FONBERG
IN
November 25 2013
Filed
Before Alex Kozinski Chief Judge Richard
Judge
Circuit
Beistline Chief District
R Clifton
Judge
SUMMARY
Employment Discrimination
The Executive
Committee of the Ninth Circuit Judicial
Council overturned the chief

and
order
former
rescinding
Under Chapter
IX
Dispute
Resolution
decision
of the
to the
of Oregon
District
chief
This
their
District
of
opinion
petition for
to
complained
Oregons
party or individual
members of the Executive
Council or
amended
who
employee
may
judge
judges
pay remedy provided
11 of the
Section
Plan
district
back
the
Employment
aggrieved
review of
a
of
that
by a
final
decision
Committee of the Ninth Circuit Judicial
designees.
summary
constitutes
been prepared by court
staff
no
part
of the opinion of the court
for the convenience
of the reader
It
has
RE FONBERG
IN
workplace discrimination pursuant to the
Employment
The
Dispute
Resolution
Office of Personnel Managements
same sex
for the employees
EDR
Districts
partner
were
couples
on account
were
treated
the
United
States
denial of health benefits
domestic
because
partner
treated differently
that
the
of due
the employee
and her
from
differently
violated
a deprivation
similarlysituated
The
of their sex or sexual orientation
Committee held
Executive
that
Plan and constituted
of Oregons
Plan
Committee held
Executive
District
the employee and her partner
from opposite sex partners
who
are
samesex
allowed
federal
marry and thereby gain spousal benefits
to
law
They also were
treated
unequally
couples in other states in the circuit
thus gain benefits under United States
2013
2675
holding
unconstitutional
Marriage Act defining marriage as a
man
and a
The
judges
who may
marry and
Windsor 133
S Ct
federal Defense
legal
of
union between a
woman
Executive
Committee overturned
amended opinion and order and
opinion and order granting relief

directed
under
vis vis
the
the chief
Clerk of Court of the
her earlier
reinstated
The Executive
District
district
Committee
of Oregon
reimburse the employee for back pay plus interest
to
RE FONBERG
IN
ORDER
Margaret
Fonberg
and
discrimination
employment
Employment
Fonberg
March
dispute
remedy provided
to
benefits
Fonberg and her
from
Review
Plan
an
Judge
Chief
in
Oregons
of
District
EDR
the
Ann
Aikens
Opinion and Order rescinding

Specifically
the
she
her
domestic
district
court
partner
during
her
same sex partner are registered under the

Act Or Rev Stat ch 106 as
Family Fairness
domestic partners
confers
Under Oregon law domestic partnership
on
rights
Fonberg served as
terms
equivalent
procedural, to marriage
the
of
workplace
of
for
her in this matter
for
employment with the
Oregon
Petition
under
relief
employee
pay for the period she sought but was denied
requests back
health
Resolution
2013 Amended
former
complained
has
filed
Dispute
seeks
a female
Oregon
of
District
Or Rev
law clerk in the
Stat
District
of
and
substantive
106.340
Oregon from May 2009
May 18 2013
to
The
the
District
of
District
2012
after
on sex the
Fonberg
District
orientation as
Oregons
Oregons
EEO
Discrimination
In
of
of
EDR
Plan incorporates
Equal
Opportunity
claims
arising
Employment
under
Non
and
Plan which prohibits discrimination based on sex

filed
her complaint alleging discrimination based
Oregon amended
a protected
its
EDR
Plan to include
sexual
category
Fonberg and her partner are not married in the State of Oregon
Oregon
Constitution
Const Art
partner
XV
limits
5a The
are married in
marriage to
record
one man and one
does not indicate
any other jurisdiction
that
woman
Fonberg
The
Or
and her
RE FONBERG
IN
In
2009
during
the
annual
period Fonberg attempted
to
open
enrollment
enroll her domestic
In
August 2010
Management
OPM
mediation
employment dispute claim was unsuccessful
EDR
States
denied her request
and
counseling
after
partner in
The United
her employeroffered family health plan

Office of Personnel
benefits
Fonberg
of
her
filed
an
Complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of her
sex
In a July
2011 Opinion and Order Chief Judge Aiken

partner on
held that the denial of health benefits to Fonbergs

the basis of her sex violated
ordered
the District
allowance
to
for the cost
EDR
the Districts
provide
Fonberg a reimbursement
of providing Fonbergs
comparable to
health insurance coverage
that
partner
Aiken also awarded Fonberg retroactive

coverage
costs
relief
for her partner
with
offered spouses
Chief Judge
of other similarlysituated judicial employees.
insurance
Plan and
for past health
from
January
2010
rescinded
her directive
b ecause
Fonberg
to
2013
the Clerk
Chief
to
Judge
and
Chief
and
Judge
her
authority within
the law affords
Aiken
partner
the
Ninth
are
Aiken
reimburse Fonberg
no legal method for reimbursement
available
matter.
March
on
Thereafter
is
currently
Fonberg no remedy
further
not
Circuit
ruled
that
married there
to permit
her
in this
because
was
to
no
order
reimbursement of the cost of health benefits for Fonbergs

domestic partner
The
benefits
violates
question
to
here is whether
Fonberg
the District
and
her
OPMs
samesex
of Oregons
EDR
decision
domestic
Plan
to
deny
partner
That is were
RE FONBERG
IN
similarlysituated
Fonberg and her partner
couples because
OPM
from
of their sex or sexual orientation
the position that employees in
has taken
such
relationships
differently
treated
as
union
civil
or
samesex
forms
other
other than marriage are not entitled to
federal health insurance benefits for their partners

Personnel
13 203
Management
July
2013
OPM
OPM
that
the
samesex couples
Benefits
Administration
relies
in United States
reasoning
married
Benefits
17 2013
Court decision
of
Office of
No
Letter
on the recent Supreme
S Ct
Windsor 133
Supreme
2675
Court only held
that
are protected by the Constitution
Administration
Letter
No 13 203
at
samesex
Oregons statutory scheme purports
to
domestic partners the same rights and
conferred
not
on married couples
Domestic
government
confer upon
legal
In practice
status as those
however
it
does
partners are denied benefits from the federal
that
are granted
married couples
to
including
same sex couples OPMs position here demonstrates that

fact Cf Garden State Equality v Dow 2013 WL 5687193
at
N J Sup
Ct
October
18 2013
n the wake of
Windsor civil union partners are being denied equal access

to
federal
benefits
because
of
the
label
placed
on
their
relationship.
Fonberg
ways
and her partner
First
partners
who
are treated
they are treated differently
differently
in
two
from opposite sex
are allowed to marry and thereby gain spousal
samesex
4
Windsor held
a federal
that
statute
defining marriage as
between a man and a woman was unconstitutional because

married couples
the benefits
federal recognition of
their
and
responsibilities that
marriages.
Id
at
2693
a legal union
denied
it
come with the
RE FONBERG
IN
benefits
law
federal
This
is
plainly
on sexual orientation which the
based
EDR
under
Plan prohibits
same sex
couples
They
in
discrimination
other
states
in
the
principle
unequally
that
the
in
federal employees
employment based on the vagaries of

law
suffers
Supreme
from precisely
Court
identified
Defense of Marriage Act
the
distinction
drawn by
Windsor
same
EDR
OPM
amounts
basis of sex under the District

under
state
be treated
not
of
federal
law Here
deficiency
with
Oregon
that
respect
the
to the
Both these forms of discrimination
in the union
participants
This violates
benefits
in Windsor
are prohibited under the Oregon
The
must
and
entitlements
vis
who may
circuit
marry and thus gain benefits under Windsor

the
of Oregons
District
are also treated unequally vis
Plan
based on the sex of the

to
discrimination
of Oregons
a deprivation
constitutes
EDR
on the
Plan and
of due process and
equal protection
For these
March
July
we
reasons
overturn
Chief
Judge
2013 Amended Opinion and Order and
8 2011
Opinion and Order granting relief
Aikens
reinstate
We
direct
her
the
Clerk of Court of the District of Oregon to reimburse Fonberg

for back
pay in the amount of
calculated
5596
in
b2
accordance
Issued this 25th day of
with
6,190.90
the Back
November 2013
plus interest
Pay Act 5
to
be
U SC
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
11 29 2013 4 47 49
Subject
RE
saw
that
Yes
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
To
Ann
Potter
Subject
Pretty
Easton
Sheila
mailto
2013
Katharine
VON TER
including
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
and
distribution
any attachments
of
com
STEGGE
Decision
intended
materials
dorsayindianlaw
10 21 AM
information
the
that
LEaston
27
communication
This
PM
Decision
interesting
November
Fonberg
Notice
Fonberg
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
may contain
purpose
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
party
any U S
is
under
not
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
I
thought
Council
Lea
Ann
you might be interested
in the
Matter
of
Fonberg
from the
Ninth
Circuit s Executive
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 2 2013 3 44 42
Subject
amended
complaint
Attachments
amended
complaint
Sheila
This communication
Notice
intended
for
including
specific
and are hereby
To comply
communication
purpose
of
this
notified
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
and
we
is
by law
protected
you are not the
If
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any

not intended
any transaction
party
is
to another
contain
is strictly
any attachments
including
recommending
any attachments
IRS regulations
with
avoiding
docx
final
individual
Notice 2
PM
you should delete
recipient
attachments
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
contained
used
for the
promoting marketing
ii
in this
or
herein
Sheila
Attached
today
Oregon
relief
is
amended
the
the issue
statutes
and
a manner
The major
our clients
substantive
of Request
you would
like
for
to discuss
Easton LLC
440
Portland
SW
OR
propose
Columbia
97258
same sex couples
that Article
rights
filling
amended
15
it
As
tomorrow
complaint
differently
5 a
Section
of state laws referencing
changes
Lea Ann Easton
Suite
of
husband
is
mentioned
than opposite
Oregon
and
are in Paragraph
of the Introduction
please
feel
free to give us
call
during our conversation
the use the

of terms
sex
Constitution
wife
that
under the Due Process and Equal Protection
Relief
Thank you
Dorsay
that treats
declaration
the enforcement
marrying violates
If
in
Lake and
complaint
are attempting to address in the
which includes
106 150
and 2
we
couples
ORS
excludes
clause
husband
We
and
wife
in
are requesting
106 041 and
ORS
same sex couples from
of the Fourteenth
Paragraph of
20 Facts
and
Amendment
Paragraphs 1
Lake James
lake
OSB No
Perriguey
983213
works com
law
LAW WORKS LLC

Portland
OR
Telephone
97205 1718
503
503
Facsimile
Lea Ann Easton

leaston
227 1928
334
2340
OSB No
dorsayindianlaw
DORSAY EASTON
1
SW
LLP
Columbia Street
Portland
OR
Telephone
Suite 440
97204
503
503
Facsimile
881413
com
790 9060
790 9068

DISTRICT OF
EUGENE
OREGON
DIVISION
DEANNA L GEIGER and JANINE M

NELSON ROBERT DUEHMIG AND
Case
No
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
WILLIAM GRIESAR
DECLARATORY INJUNCTIVE
OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiffs
OR
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his official
ROSENBLUM
in
her official
Woodward
Registrar
in
her official
Multnomah
in his official
capacity as
Jennifer
capacity as
Center for Health

Waldruff
capacity
ELLEN
of Oregon
State
Statistics
and Randy
capacity as
County Assessor
Defendants
Plaintiffs
Deanna
Geiger and Janine Nelson
complain of Defendants and
Page 1
allege
AMENDED COMPLAINT
and Robert Duehmig and William Griesar
INTRODUCTION
Oregon
Constitution states
Or Const
Art
15
Oregonians who were married
5a
Oregon
husband
and
statutes
wife
e g
This provision
legally in
against gay and lesbian Oregonians
is
and
political
its
subdivisions
one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a
marriage
It
other
who want
discriminates
jurisdictions
This provision
also discriminates
to marry in Oregon
Oregon Revised Statutes
have been interpreted
against gay and lesbian
106 041 and
106 150
that
to exclude same sex couples from civil
refer
to
marriage in
Oregon
some
people denies
Amendment
ORS
106 300
106 340
to the United
Art
15
liberties
Oregon
unequal treatment
Plaintiffs
5a and the application
seeking
Page 2
Plaintiffs
a declaration
that
who
of gay and lesbian
and enforcement of
excludes gay and lesbian people from equal access to civil
sex
States Constitution
For these reasons
Or Const
that
of same
marry one another
of
This domestic partnership
institution
who
Oregon
statutes in
a manner
marriage
bring this action
pursuant to 42
AMENDED COMPLAINT
enjoin the application
is
unconstitutional
1983
under
the
Due
Process Clause and under the Equal Protection
the United
marry under
state
law and
it
denies
also seek
and by implication
preventing
a declaration
he Defendants from enforcing
that
Oregon
marriage to only a
restrict
Protection
to
this
provision
Constitution
Plaintiffs
and wife
Amendment
gay and lesbian people the equal opportunity to
denies
equal state recognition
same sex and a permanent injunction
of Oregon
it
Due
Amendment
man and
which
woman
refer
to
husband
to the United
preventing
statutes
States Constitution
these statutes
that
and
exclude Plaintiffs
from equal access to marriage
Plaintiffs
seek equal access to marriage and the same legal recognition
union that the State of Oregon extends to opposite
federal benefits and obligations
that
Plaintiffs
fundamental
people
bring this lawsuit
constitutional
Plaintiffs
and for any other
rights
and
also seek recovery
relief
the Court
pursuant to 42
liberties
that
the United
of their attorneys
may
fees
all
of the
Constitution Section 5
1983 to enforce
their
States Constitution ensures for
costs
order
AMENDED COMPLAINT
seek access
sex couples
JURISDICTION
Page 3
Plaintiffs
they are denied because Oregon
Article 15 prohibits marriage between same
sex couples
of their
AND VENUE
and expenses
all
for this action
1983
all
States and 42
1331 and 1343
Venue
is
Rosenblum and Kitzhaber maintain
proper
in this district
and are continuing
because
official
offices
in
US C
to 28
1391 b
Marion County
giving
because Defendants
Oregon
rise
Venue
is
also
THE PARTIES
10
committed
County
relationship
Oregon
11
in
Plaintiffs
2003
Plaintiffs
Oregon and reside
capacity
Page 4
in
in
Multnomah
two
Oregon
Robert Duehmig and William Griesar are men who were married
teenagers
County Oregon
Plaintiffs
and
Plaintiffs
officially
their
Canada
children are residents of
Duehmig and
treat
in
Griesar are
citizens
them the same as heterosexual
marriage under Oregon law
the Governor
responsibility
have been
are Oregon citizens married under the laws of other jurisdictions and officially
sanction Plaintiffs
12
women who
are residents of Oregon and reside in Multnomah
are parents of
in
Plaintiffs
and desire to have the State of Oregon
who
couples
for 31 years
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
of Oregon
Deanna
is
is
the Governor
the chief executive officer of the State of Oregon
AMENDED COMPLAINT
fairly
uniformly
It
In his official
is
his
and const
itutionally
Defendant Kitzhaber
color of state law at
13
is
capacity the Attorney General
is
the Attorney General of the State of Oregon
is
Defendant
Rosenblum
14
Statistics
Hoffman
15
Waldruff
in
all
in
the vital
Randy Waldruff
County
Oregon
Defendants
is
constitutionally
statistic
It
of Oregon and
is
the manager
her duty to record
records for the State
is
all
Oregon
Defendant Waldruff
marriage statutes
The
against each Defendant
relief
law
at
County
Randy
employees
under
their
their
supervision
is
direction
sought against
and agents
supervision
AMENDED COMPLAINT
times relevant to this complaint
all
is
and control are
of Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a and
s officers
with Defendant
state
Page 5
is
cooperation
It
Multnomah
16
the State Registrar
is
Defendant
is
US C
marriages along with births and deaths
is
and
In
all
Hoffman
uniformly
fairly
is
Defendant Suzanne
Defendant
all
her official
US C
and against
at their
all
each Defendant
all
direction
Oregon
as well as
persons acting in
FACTS
17
same sex
many
couples
18
but not
Oregon
acknowledge
including
that
to achieve
19
provisions
106 150
courts
at
its
his state
their fullest
In addition
differ
findings
supporting
qualify
the adoption
of the Act at
ORS
106 305
and
legal
that
Oregon
ll
and
protections
families
status
and the
potential
in
and unequal
Oregon marriage
that
ORS
legal
framework
tatutes in
both individuals
106 325 5
the Act s
the following ways
Oregon
marriage statutes
ORS
in
front of
two
witnesses
ORS
106 010
106 010
Applicants
very inception
ORS
106 325 4
to jurisdiction of th e Oregon
State law does not force opposite
by consenting to
Page 6
of
of marriage
anticipate
institution
These laws provide to same sex
include a provision
and unequal
from the provisions
To
106 340
however
s legislative
106 300
of the benefits and obligations
all
should be provided
ability
ORS
Act created a separate
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Oregon court
of their partnership
sex couples to
jurisdiction at
the time they
Oregon Revised Statute
106 041 4
laws of the State of Oregon affirm your
within the marriage free from violence
woman
and one
106
Statute
5 a
Oregon marital
041 and
is
and abuse
of Oregon
There
is
no
similar
for same
requirement
to
husband
and
wife
e g
state
man
Oregon Revised
Defendants and those subject to their supervision
and control apply the Constitution and
sex
laws
Constitution defines marriage as between one
statutes refer
106 150
The
to enter into marriage and at the same time to live
under the domestic partnership
couples applying for recognition
Article 15
right
marriage license must
that
contain the following statement
20
provides
direction
laws to exclude gay and lesbian couples from
marriage
21
achieve
Exclusion
their
life
goals and dre
class
ams
Plaintiffs
and
their
children
Plaintiffs
Same
to marriage
couples
stability
are stigmatized
are identical
sex couples
Like different
futures together
to opposite
make
sex couples
sex couples in
abilities
to
and denies them
faced
same sex couples
children
Page 7
with injury or illness
like
opposite
sex couples
all
the same commitment to one another as different
couples support one another emotionally and financially
when
Plaintiffs
citizens
22
their
from marriage by Oregon law undermines the
Same
fall
in
love
build their
Like opposite
sex couples
AMENDED COMPLAINT
sex
together
plan
same sex
and take care of one another physically
sex couples seek the same ability
Plaintiffs
lives
relevant
seek equal access to marriage
for the same
emotional
romantic
as opposite
families
23
many
and
dignitary
reasons
and
to
provide
same
the
legal
to
shelter
their
sex spouses
Oregon
discriminatory marriage laws bar same
of the federal benefits
protections
and obligations
sex couples from equal access to
accessible
to heterosexual
married
couples under federal law
24
in
Plaintiffs
Vancouver
BC
Duehmig and
on December 29
Griesar are citizens of Oregon
2003
Defendants refuse to recognize Plaintiffs
because
they are both
men
Plaintiffs
who were
Duehmig an d
Duehmig and
Griesar as a legally married couple
Griesar want Defendants to accept
them the same as heterosexual couples who are Oregon
in
sanction Plaintiffs
September 23
Multnomah
Multnomah
26
officially
On
25
license
and
2013
County Oregon
County Clerk because
Plaintiffs
economic harms
and
humiliation
their
marriage
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
they are both
citizens
tal
County
their
officially
treat
married under the laws of other
under Oregon law
license
by the
women
and socie
married
Despite the fact that they are legally married the
marriage license and desire to have the State of Oregon and Multnomah
jurisdictions
legally
significant
emotional
and
physic al
stigma caused by Oregon s refusal to allow same sex
27
Oregon
If
is
not declared unconstitutional
marriage to heterosexual couples are not enjoined
a manner that excludes plaintiffs
Page 8
5a
from access to marriage sole
AMENDED COMPLAINT
ly
because
and
if
from application
they are same
sex
in
couples
thereby depriving
Plaintiffs
States Constitution
United
marriage as valid
injunctive
relief
application
to enforce
The
relief
rights
laws against
sought requires Defendants to recognize same
The
seek requires Defendants to revise the official
for license to marry the certificate
marry and the marriage
and
certificate
Amendment
as a matter of federal law within the State of Oregon
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
will
and
forms for the
of registry of marriage including
require
sex
declaratory
state
to the
the license to
license
28
set
Plaintiffs
incorporate
27 supra as
if
fully
forth herein
29
liberties
that
are protected
by the Due Process Clause
both on
its
Plaintiffs
fundamental
Plaintiffs
30
by denying gay and lesbian individuals
liberties
laws
stigmatizes gays
dignity
respect
lesbians
their
the right to choose
Plaintiffs
wh om
fundamental
to marry
Oregon
children and their families by denying them the same
officially
recognized
opposite
sex married couples by
denying gay and lesbian couples equal access to marriage
31
only to
Page 9
Oregon Revised Statutes create a statutory presumption
husband
and
wife
g Oregon Revised Statutes
AMENDED COMPLAINT
that
106 041 and
marriage
is
106 150
permitted
32
Insofar as Defendants
Section 5a and applying and enforcing
Defendants
violation
of 42
33
106 150
Oregon
statutes that limit
are depriving
and
marriage to husband
will
continue
to the United
and wife
States Constitution in
1983
and other
the terms of Oregon Constitution Article 15
are enforcing
state
of the same sex violate
husband
laws referencing
same sex couples or prevent recognition
Section 5a
and
wife
of marriages because
106 041 and
from
exclude marriage
that
they were entered by individuals
the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment
both faciall y and as
applied to Plaintiffs
CLAIM
34
incorporate
Plaintiffs
27 supra
as
if
fully
set
forth herein
35
Plaintiffs
state this
cause of action against Defendants in their official
for purposes of seeking declaratory
36
pursuant
to 42
of the laws
15
referencing
solely
injunctive
The
Fourteenth
Amendment
provides
1983
The conduct
Section 5a
and
state shall
States Constitution
and
wife
that
by discriminating impermissibly on the
106 041 and
exclude
basis
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Oregon Constitution Article
106 150
marriage for same
violatePlaintiffs
enforceable
deny to any person the equal protection
of Defendants and their agents in enforcing
to registered domestic partnership
Page 10
no
and Oregon Revised Statutes
husband
relief
to the United
that
capacities
right
of sexual orientation
and
other state laws
sex couples and restrict
to equal protection
them
of the laws
37
and
106 150
and other
state
law referencing
same sex couples or prevent recognition
of the same sex violate
facially
38
husband
wife
wife
39
that
restrict
all
civil
Oregon
statutes
of the opposite
providing civil
These
legal
violate
provisions
distinguish
and couples consisting of individuals
both
sex
referencing
treats
marriage to
respect
all
state statutes
Clause because
to the extent they
they discriminate
on
of the same sex
them the same dignity
their
children and their families by denying
officially
recognized
couples by denying gay and lesbian couples equal access to marriage
opposite
Insofar
sex married
as they are
the terms of Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a and Oregon statutes that limit
enforcing
marriage to husband
United
Amendment
guarantee of the Fourteenth
couples but not to gay and lesbian couples
the basis of sex
continue
preclude marriage for
Plaintiffs
marriage to heterosexuals
40
that
106 041
they were entered by individuals
situated people differently without legal justification
heterosexual
woman
and
and
similarly
limit
husband
the equal protection
and as applied to
Section 5a
to deprive
and wife Defendants
Plaintiffs
US C
IRREPARABLE
Page 11
AMENDED COMPLAINT
are depriving
by the Fourtee nth Amendment
1983
INJURY
and
will
to the
41
set
Plaintiffs
incorporate
Plaintiffs
are
as
fully
if
forth herein
42
now
Due
severely and irre parably injured by Oregon Constitution
statutes that
limit
violate
the
United
States Constitution
Plaintiffs
marriage to husband
limit
be redressed only
injuries will
marriage to only heterosexual couples unconstitutional
An
43
limit
state
Amendment
this
laws
to the
Court declares
and Oregon statutory laws
that
would
and enjoins
as applied to Pl aintiffs
controversy
exists
between
Plaintiffs
whether Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a and Oregon
marriage to husband and wife violate
enforcing
if
These
Article
them
and wife
Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a unconstitutional
that
27 supra
Amendment
the
to the United
Due
and
statutes
States Constitution
Defendants are currently
detriment
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE
Page 12
to 28
US C
2201 declare
that
the provisions
and
by Defendants of Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a Oregon Revised
106 041 and
exclude same
partnership
request judgment as follows
the Court pursuant
enforcement
Statutes
Plaintiffs
106 150
and
other
state
laws referencing
husband
and
wife
that
sex couples from marrying and relegate them to only registered domestic
violate
Plaintiffs
rights
under the
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Due
Process and
Equal Protection
Clause of the
Fourteenth
in
Amendment
another jurisdiction
on the
fact that
to the United
declaring that
Plaintiffs
are same
States Constitution
it
unconstitutional
is
sex couples
and
for those couples legally married
for Defendants to refuse
to respect Plaintiffs
out
based solely
of state valid marriages
as marriages in Oregon
the Court issue a permanent
injunction
enjoining enforcement
and
and
other state laws referencing
husband
wife
that
who
recognition
are legally married in another jurisdiction
enjoining
Defendants in their official
the same terms as different
sex couples
sex couples from
valid
sex couples to marry on
marriages of same
couples from other jurisdictions on the same terms as the valid marriag es of different
from other
1988
Page 13
sex
sex couples
jurisdictions
Plaintiffs
sex
Defendants from denying
capacities to allow same
and to recognize the
106 150
and for those same
of those marriages based solely on the fact that Plaintiffs
Requiring
106 041 and
exclude same
marriage and restrict them to only registered domestic partnership
couples
by Defendants of
respectfully
and
all
Such other
request costs of suit including
further relief
relief
to which they are entitled
as the Court deems appropriate
AMENDED COMPLAINT
reasonab
and
le
attorneys
fees under 42
DATED
LAW WORKS
LLC
By
Lake James
Perriguey
OSB No
and
DORSAY EASTON
LLP
By
Lea Ann Easton
OSB No
Page 14
AMENDED COMPLAINT
881413
983213
Page 1
From
Potter
To
leaston
Sent
12 3 2013 11 02 45
Subject
Kentucky
http
www
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
158
503
947
dorsayindianlaw
freedomtomarry org page

Potter
12th
Salem
Sheila
Trial Counsel
Street
OR
97301
4700
NE
of
Justice
com
AM
files
pdfs
BourkevBeshearComplaint
pdf
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 3 2013 2 07 02
Subject
amended
complaint
Attachments
amended
complaint 12012013
Notice
This communication
intended
Sheila
recipient
for
including
specific
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
including
avoiding
recommending
this
notified
that
it
docx
any attachments
may
and purpose
individual
Notice 2
PM
you should delete
and are hereby
attachments
communication
and
protected
is strictly
IRS regulations
any attachments
party
is
we
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
not intended
to
to another
contain
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
Sheila
Attached
is
the
Thank you
Lea Ann Easton
amended
complaint
we
discussed
earlier
today
Please
let
me knowyou
if
would
like
to discuss
it
Lake James
lake
OSB No
Perriguey
983213
works com
law
LAW WORKS LLC

Portland
OR
Telephone
97205 1718
503
503
Facsimile
Lea Ann Easton

leaston
227 1928
334
2340
OSB No
dorsayindianlaw
DORSAY EASTON
1
SW
LLP
Columbia Street
Portland
OR
Telephone
Suite 440
97204
503
503
Facsimile
881413
com
790 9060
790 9068

DISTRICT OF
EUGENE
OREGON
DIVISION

Case
No
WILLIAM GRIESAR
OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiffs
OR
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his official
ROSENBLUM
in
her official
Woodward
Registrar
in
her official
Multnomah
in his official
capacity as
Jennifer
capacity as
Center for Health

Waldruff
capacity
ELLEN
of Oregon
State
Statistics
and Randy
capacity as
County Assessor
Defendants
Plaintiffs
Deanna
Page 1
allege
AMENDED COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
Oregon
as a marriage
recognized
lesbian Oregonians
Or Const
who were
It
15
Art
5a
Oregon
and
statutes
e g
This provision
who want
and
its
political
discriminates
against gay and
This provision
also
to marry in Oregon
wife
married legally in other jurisdictions
against g ay and lesbian Oregonians
discriminates
is
subdivisions
husband
Constitution states
to exclude same
106 041 and
106 150
sex couples from civil
that
refer
to
marriage in
Oregon
some
people denies
Amendment
ORS
106 300
106 340
to the United
Art
15
liberties
Oregon
unequal treatment
Plaintiffs
seeking
Plaintiffs
a declaration
that
of gay and lesbian
Article 15
and enforcement of Oregon
who
statutes in
Section 5a of the Oregon Constitution
AMENDED COMPLAINT
a manner
marriage
Page 2
who
sex
States Constitution
For these reasons
Or Const
that
of same
marry one another
of
institution
is
1983
unconstitutional
Amendment
to the United
opportunity to marry under state law and
people of the same
this
of Oregon
Plaintiffs
husband
to
denies
sex and a permanent injunction
provision
refer
it
Equal Protection
a declaration
and by implication
th e Defendants from enforcing
preventing
that
Oregon
restrict
Amendment
statutes
Due
herein
man and
which
woman
are
Process Clause and under the
to the United
preventing
identified
marriage to only a
as applied to same sex couples under the
unconstitutional
of marriages between
Constitution
also seek
and wife
gay and lesbian people the equal
denies
it
States Constitution
these statutes
and
hat exclude Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
union that the State of Oregon extends to opposite
federal benefits
and obligations
that
sex couples
Plaintiffs
of Article 15
they are denied because
seek access
of their
all
of the
Section 5a of the
Oregon Constitution
Plaintiffs
fundamental
people
bring this lawsuit
constitutional
Plaintiffs
and for any other
rights
and
also seek recovery
relief
the Court
pursuant to 42
liberties
that
fees
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1983 to enforce
States
costs
order
JURISDICTION
Page 3
the United
of their attorneys
may
AND VENUE
their
Constitution ensures
and expenses
for
all
for this action
1983
all
States and 42
1331 and 1343
10
Venue
is
Rosenblum and Kitzhaber maintain of
proper
in this district
and are continuing
because
ficial
offices
in
to 28
US C
1391 b
because Defendants
Marion County Oregon
giving
rise
Venue
also
is
THE PARTIES
11
committed
County
Plaintiffs
relationship
Oregon
12
Canada
in
Geiger and Janine
for 31 years
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
2003
Deanna
Plaintiffs
Nelson are
women who
are parents of
two
residents of Oregon and reside in Multnomah
in
couples
who
are Oregon
sanction Plaintiffs
officially
13
capacity
teenagers
Plaintiffs
County Oregon
en who were married in
and
Page 4
is
is
their
Plaintiffs
Duehmig and
treat
Griesar
them the same as
law
the Governor
AMENDED COMPLAINT
children are
married under the laws of other jurisdictions and
the Governor
responsibility
citizens
Oregon
heterosexual
in
Plaintiffs
have been
fairly
uniformly
It
and
is
In his official
his
constitutionally
Defendant Kitzhaber
14
her official
is
Rosenblum
15
is
is
the
Statistics
Hoffman
16
Waldruff
in
all
17
in
the vital statistic
Randy Waldruff
County
Oregon
Defendants
is
It
is
the manager
is
her duty to record
all
records for the State of Oregon
Defendant Waldruff
County
s officers
Defendant
under
employees
their
law
at
all
their
is
Randy
is
supervision
and agents
supervision
and against
at their
AMENDED COMPLAINT
direction
and control are
Defendant
state
Page 5
relief
is
Multnomah
The
It
constitutionally
of Oregon and
the State Registrar
is
Defendant
is
and
US C
is
uniformly
fairly
In
all
Defendant Suzanne
Hoffman
chief legal officer
is
Defendant
all
Defendant
US C
direction
all
laws
as well as against each
with
FACTS
18
same sex
many
couples
19
but not
Oregon
acknowledge
including
that
to achieve
20
provisions
106 150
courts
at
its
his state
their fullest
In addition
differ
findings
supporting
of
qualify
marriage
of the Act at
the adoption
and
legal
that
106 305
and
families
status
and the
potential
in
and unequal
Oregon marriage
that
ORS
legal
framework
statutes in
the following ways
both individuals
106 325 5
the Act s
Oregon
marriage statutes
ORS
in
front of
two
witnesses
ORS
106 010
106 010
and
Applicants
very inception
ORS
106 325 4
to jurisdiction of the Oregon
Page 6
ORS
Oregon
ll
protections
anticipate
of
include a provision
institution
from the provisions
To
106 340
however
s legislative
106 300
all
should be provided
ability
ORS
and unequal
AMENDED COMPLAINT
sex couples to
jurisdiction at
the time they
ORS
provides
statement
Oregon affirm your
free
106 041 4
right
that
is
The
to enter into marriage and at the same time to live within the marriage
There
is
no
for same
requirement
similar
for recognition
21
Article 15
5a of Oregon
Section
man and one woman
The
22
following
Oregon marital laws
ORS
and void marriage
Prohibited
106 150 Form of solemization
Removal of wife
Nonliability
s civil
caused by wife
ORS
ORS
108 045
children
ORS
108 050
in
spouses
108 100
Liability
rules
Community
Property law of 1943
agreement
and
Page 7
ORS
ORS
108 550
by
108 030
Liability
for expenses
in fact
108 510
ORS
Conveyances
ORS
ORS
of husband
106 020
ORS
record
108 010
108 020
for civil
injuries
of family and education of
of family and education
Civil
obligations
of
ORS
108 060
remedies between spouses
transfers
validati
for each other
and
liens
between
ORS
on of prior dissolutions
ORS
108 110
Petition
for support
Revocation of election to come under terms of
108 530
Removal of community property
Reliance on spouse
AMENDED COMPLAINT
108 080
entireties
ORS
wife
application
same as husband
ORS
108 090
and
before congregation
of parents for expenses
of estates
ORS
husband
of wife s property for husbands
Husband and wife as attorney
and children
rights
of stepparent
ORS
creation and dissolution
of spouse
solemnization
property of other
property
to
Marriage License
wife s civil
Nonliability
in
041
obligations
Liability
of one spouse
respect of separate
108 040
children
Noninterest
witnesses
disabilities
for other spouse
106
refer
status
by
right to deal with property in spouse
name
The Oregon Evidence Code
Rule 311 Presumptions
state
their
life
interpret
sex couples from marriage
goals and dreams
Plaintiffs
and the
and
their
Same
sex couples
Like different
couples
privilege
husband
and
benefits
wife
in
these
and
these state laws
children
mic
are stigmatized
futures together
to opposite
make
sex couples in
Plaintiffs
stability
abilities
to
and denies them
same sex couples
sex couples
faced
fall
children
like
emotional
families
opposite
romantic
as opposite
25
Oregon
Same
sex couples
and
dignitary
in
love
reasons
Like opposite
sex couples
to
plan
same sex
and
sex
build their lives together
Plaintiffs
relevant
provide
the
same
for the same
legal
shelter
to
their
sex spouses
discriminatory marriage laws bar same
protections
and obligations
Page 8
all
many
40 135
man and one woman under
privileges
threatens their mutual econo
are identical
Plaintiffs
to marriage
when
the terms
ORS
wife
citizens
24
their
and
Exclusion
class
Husband and wife
Rule 505
for married persons created under
23
achieve
n 40 255
Section 5a of Oregon Constitution
laws to exclude same
obligations
ORS
husband
relying upon the definition of marr iage as between one
Defendants
Article 15
and
also uses the terms
AMENDED COMPLAINT
sex couples from equal access to
accessible
to heterosexual
married
26
in
Plaintiffs
Vancouver
BC
Duehmig and
on December 29
2003
because
they are both
men
Plaintiffs
who were
Despite
Griesar as a
legally
September 23
Multnomah
in
Multnomah
28
sanction Plaintiffs
officially
On
27
license
and
2013
County Oregon
Plaintiffs
economic harms
and
their
humiliation
and
marriage
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
they are both
citizens
County
their
officially
treat
under Oregon law
by the
license
women
societal
married couple
Griesar want Defendants to accept
jurisdictions
married
Duehmig and
Duehmig and
legally
stigma caused
significant
by Oregon
emotional
s refusal
and
physic al
to allow same sex
29
Oregon
If
Defendants will
thereby depriving
United
States Constitution
marriage
as valid
injunctive
relief
application
Page 9
because
to enforce these unconstitutional
The
ly
relief
rights
seek
they are same
laws against
if
Plaintiffs
The
requires Defendants to revise the official
AMENDED COMPLAINT
of registry of
m arriage
to the
sex
declaratory
state
and
forms for the
including
in
sex
Amendment
Plaintiffs
and
continue
Plaintiffs
is
marriage to heterosexual couples are not enjoined from application
couples
5a
the license to
require
certificate
and extend to same sex couples the same
husband
and
wife
under
state
privileges
benefits
and obligations
license
extended to
law
30
set
Plaintiffs
incorporate
29 supra as
if
fully
forth herein
31
liberties
that
are protected
by the Due Process Clause both on
its
fundamental
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
32
liberties
laws
stigmatizes gays
dignity
lesbians
m to
who
marry
Oregon
their
respect
the right to choose
fundamental
Plaintiffs
officially
recognized
opposite
33
husband
only to
husband
34
and
and
wife
wife
are created by the provisions
are enforcing
man and one woman and
herein using the terms
obligations
certain benefits
Section 5a to one
husband
Page 10
and
and
applying
wife
are depriving
AMENDED COMPLAINT
marriage
privileges
of Oregon laws identified
afforded
is
permitted
to
herein
the of Oregon Constitution Article 15
and enforcing
as limited to a
and
and
that
will
continue
the Oregon
man and
statutes identified
woman
Defendants
of numerous
rights
secured
1983
35
relying on the terms
husband
and
wife
to exclude
and the
state
marriage from
the due process clause
Amendment
of the Fourteenth
laws
identified
herein
same sex couples or
of marriages because they were entered by individuals
prevent recognition
violate
to the United
both facially
of the same sex
and as applied to
Plaintiffs
CLAIM
36
fully
set
Plaintiffs
incorporate
Plaintiffs
state this
cause of action
38
and
injunctive
Fourteenth
Amendment
provides
1983
The conduct
Section 5a
wife
and
The
to 42
of the laws
15
29
supra
as
if
forth herein
37
pursuant
that
no
exclude
violate
States Constitution
state shall
of Defendants and their agents
marriage
right
enforceable
in
identified
enforcing
herein which
for same sex couples and restrict
Plaintiffs
capacities
relief
to the United
and the provisions of Oregon laws
that
against Defendants in their official
to equal protection
them
reference
solely
husband
to registered
of the laws by discriminating
impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation
39
identified
herein which reference
couples or prevent recognition
Page 11
husband
Section 5a
and
wife
that
preclude marriage for same
AMENDED COMPLAINT
sex
of the
same sex
violate
the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth
Amendment
and
both facially
as applied to Plaintiffs
40
herein as
opposite
civil
Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a and the Oregon
husband
referencing
sex treats similarly
marriage to opposite
41
wife
that restrict
sex couples but not to same
they discriminate
on the
basis
of sex
individuals
of the same
42
couples by denying
marriage to husband
respect
their
to deprive
and wife Defendants
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
officially
incorporate
recognized
opposite
Insofar
statutes
provisions
of
US C
AMENDED COMPLAINT
sex married
as they are
herein which
are depriving
limit
and
ill
to the
1983
INJURY
forth herein
Page 12
legal
43
These
to
Clause
a nd couples consisting
gay and lesbian couples equal access to marriage
IRREPARABLE
set
woman
enforcing
United
herein
sex
providing
state statutes identified
and sexual orientation
of the
sex couples
sex couples violate
distinguish
continue
civil
the extent they limit
because
and
statutes identified
27 supra
as
if
fully
44
Plaintiffs
are
now
Due
severely and irreparably injured by Oregon Constitution
statutes that
limit
violate
the
United
States Constitution
Plaintiffs
marriage to husband
injuries will
be redressed only
would
limit
marriage to only opposite
if
These
Amendment
that
and wife
this
laws
to the
Court declares
and Oregon laws
sex couples unconstitutional
state
Article
herein
identified
and enjoins Defendants from enforcing them
An
45
identified
herein
exists
between
marriage to husband
and wife
Amendment
violate
the
Due
to the United
Defendants are currently enforcing these state laws to Plaintiffs
and
Plaintiffs
that limit
Equal Protection
controversy
statutes
States Constitution
detriment
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE
15
Plaintiffs
respectfully
the Court pursuant
Section 5a of
and
to 28
US C
declaring
the fact that Plaintiffs
are
Plaintiffs
that
same
it
is
unconstitutional
sex couples
Page 13
2201 enter a declaratory
the Oregon Constitution violates
Clause and Equal Protection
Constitution
request
AMENDED COMPLAINT
rights
Amendment
judgment
Article
under the Due Process
to the United
to recognize Plaintiffs
that
out
States
based solely on
and
all
same sex couples the
other
husband
interpreting
obligations
and
afforded
and
wife
opposite
right
Griesar and
under 42
Plaintiffs
1988
to exclude same
all
relief
denying Plaintiffs
sex couples from the privileges
from
benefits
in
herein
request costs of suit
further relief
to which
including
they are entitled
fees
and
DATED
LAW WORKS
LLC
By
Lake James
Perriguey
OSB No
and
DORSAY EASTON
LLP
By
Lea Ann Easton
OSB No
Page 14
AMENDED COMPLAINT
and
arriages validly entered into by Plaintiffs
same sex couples
respectfully
Such other
Defendants
sex married couples created under the state laws identified
other
and
enjoining
to marry in Oregon and enjoining Defendants
enjoining Defendants from recognizing
Duehmig and
injunction
881413
983213
Page 1
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
12 3 2013 3 21 22
Subject
RE
Thanks
Do
you
From
Lea
Sent
Tuesday
Ann
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
by any chance
Easton
03
have
a redline version
LEaston
2013
dorsayindianlaw
of
it
com
2 07 PM
Perriguey
Subject
amended
Notice
mailto
December
Sheila
PM
amended complaint
complaint
communication
This
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
may contain
purpose
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
party
any U S
is
not
under
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Sheila
Attached
like
to
Thank
Lea
is
the
discuss
you
Ann
Easton
amended
it
complaint
we
discussed
earlier today
Please
let
me know
if
you would
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
12 3 2013 3 53 08
Subject
RE
Attachments
amended
Yes
here
Sheila
H
PM
amended complaint
complaint 12032013
redline
docx
is
it
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
December 03 2013 3 21 PM
Tuesday
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE amended complaint
Thanks
Do
From
Sent
you by any chance
Lea Ann Easton
Potter
Cc
Lake
LEaston
mailto
of
it
com
dorsayindianlaw
Sheila
Perriguey
Subject
amended complaint
Notice
This communication
intended
recipient
for
including
specific
To comply
communication
of
with
including
avoiding
recommending
this
notified
Notice 2
any attachments
that
it
may
and purpose
individual
you should delete
and are hereby
attachments
purpose
redline version
Tuesday
To
have a
communication
and
is strictly
we
IRS regulations
any attachments
party
is
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
not intended
any transaction
by law
inform you that any
is
protected
to
to another
contain
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
Sheila
Attached
is
amended
the
complaint
we
discussed
earlier
today
Please
let
me knowyou
if
would
like
to discuss
it
Thank you
Lea Ann Easton
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
Lake James
lake
OSB No
Perriguey
983213
works com
law
LAW WORKS LLC

Portland
OR
Telephone
97205 1718
503
503
Facsimile
Lea Ann Easton

leaston
227 1928
334
2340
OSB No
dorsayindianlaw
DORSAY EASTON
1
SW
LLP
Columbia Street
Portland
OR
Telephone
Suite 440
97204
503
503
Facsimile
881413
com
790 9060
790 9068

DISTRICT OF
EUGENE
OREGON
DIVISION

Case
No
WILLIAM GRIESAR
OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiffs
OR
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his official
ROSENBLUM
in
her official
Woodward
Registrar
in
her official
Multnomah
in his official
capacity as
Jennifer
capacity as
Center for Health

Waldruff
capacity
ELLEN
of Oregon
State
Statistics
and Randy
capacity as
County Assessor
Defendants
Plaintiffs
Deanna
Page 1
allege
AMENDED COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
Oregon
as a marriage
recognized
lesbian Oregonians
Or Const
who were
It
15
Art
5a
Oregon
and
statutes
e g
who want
and
its
political
discriminates
against gay and
This provision
also
to marry in Oregon
wife
This provision
married legally in other jurisdictions
against g ay and lesbian Oregonians
discriminates
is
subdivisions
husband
Constitution states
to exclude same
106 041 and
106 150
sex couples from civil
that
refer
to
marriage in
Oregon
some
people denies
Amendment
ORS
106 300
106 340
to the United
Art
15
liberties
Oregon
unequal treatment
Plaintiffs
seeking
Plaintiffs
a declaration
that
and enforcement of
Article 15
who
of gay and lesbian
Oregon
statutes in
pursuant to 42
Section 5a of the Oregon Constitution
AMENDED COMPLAINT
a manner
marriage
bring this action
Page 2
who
sex
States Constitution
For these reasons
Or Const
that
of same
marry one another
of
institution
is
1983
unconstitutional
Amendment
to the United
opportunity to marry under state law and
people of the same
this
of Oregon
Plaintiffs
husband
to
denies
prev enting the Defendants from enforcing
a declaration
and by implication
that
Oregon
restrict
Equal Protection
Amendment
Due
herein
man and
which
wom
an are
to the United
preventing
statutes identified
marriage to only a
as applied to same sex couples under the
unconstitutional
Constitution
also seek
and wife
gay and lesbian people the equal
sex and a permanent injunction
provision
refer
it
denies
it
States Constitution
these statutes
that
and
exclude Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
union that the State of Oregon
federal benefits and obligations
extends to opposite
that
sex couples
Plaintiffs
of Article 15
of their
seek access
all
of the
Section 5a of the
Oregon Constitution
Plaintiffs
fundamental
people
bring this lawsuit
constitutional
Plaintiffs
and for any other
rights
and
also seek recovery
relief
the Court
pursuan
liberties
that
to 42
may
the United
of their attorneys
fees
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1983 to enforce
their
States Constitution ensures for
costs
order
JURISDICTION
Page 3
AND VENUE
and expenses
all
for this action
1983
States and 42
all
1331 and 1343
10
Venue
is
proper
in this
Rosenblum and Kitzhaber maintain
proper
in this district
and are continuing
because
Court pursuant to 28
official
offices
in
Marion County
giving
1391 b
because
Oregon
Venue
rise
to the claims
Defendants
is
also
occurred
THE PARTIES
11
committed
County
Plaintiffs
relationship
Oregon
12
Canada
in
for 31 years
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
2003
Deanna
Plaintiffs
women who
in
Oregon
Robert Duehmig and William Griesar are men who were married
Plaintiffs
are parents of
two
teenagers
Plaintiffs
County Oregon
and
who
are Oregon
sanction Plaintiffs
officially
13
capacity
Page 4
is
is
Griesar
them the same as
law
the Governor
to ensure that the State s laws are enforced fairly
AMENDED COMPLAINT
children are
Duehmig and
treat
in
married under the laws of other jurisdictions and
the Governor
responsibility
citizens
their
Plaintiffs
couples
in
residents of Oregon and reside in Multnomah
heterosexual
have been
uniformly
It
and
is
In his official
his
constitutionally
Defendant Kitzhaber
14
her official
is
Rosenblum
15
is
is
Statistics
Hoffman
16
Waldruff
in
all
17
in
the vital
Randy Waldruff
County
Oregon
Defendants
is
statistic
It
is
the manager
is
her duty to record
all
records for the State of Oregon
Defendant Waldruff
County
s officers
Defendant
under
employees
their
law
at
all
their
is
Randy
is
supervision
and agents
supervision
and against
at their
AMENDED COMPLAINT
direction
and control are
Defendant
state
Page 5
relief
is
Multnomah
The
It
itutionally
of Oregon and
the State Registrar
is
Defendant
is
US C
is
and const
In
all
Defendant Suzanne
Hoffman
uniformly
fairly
is
Defendant
all
Defendant
US C
direction
all
laws
as well as against ea ch
with
FACTS
18
same sex
many
couples
19
but not
Oregon
acknowledge
including
that
to achieve
20
provisions
106 150
courts
at
its
his state
their fullest
In addition
differ
findings
supporting
qualify
of marriage
of the Act at
the adoption
and
legal
that
106 30 5
and
families
status
and the
potential
in
and unequal
Oregon marriage
that
ORS
legal
framework
statutes in
the following ways
both individuals
106 325 5
the Act s
Oregon
marriage statutes
ORS
in
front of
two
witnesses
ORS
106 010
106 010
and
Applicants
very inception
ORS
106 325 4
to jurisdiction of the Oregon
Page 6
ORS
Oregon
ll
protections
anticipate
of
include a provision
institution
from the provisions
To
106 340
however
s legislative
106 300
all
should be provided
ability
ORS
and unequal
AMENDED COMPLAINT
sex couples to
jurisdiction at
the
time they
ORS
provides
statement
Oregon affirm your
free
106 041 4
right
that
is
The
to enter into marriage and at the same time to live within the marriage
There
is
no
for same
requirement
similar
for recognition
21
Article 15
5a of Oregon
Section
man and one woman
The
22
following
Oregon marital laws
ORS
and void marriage
Prohibited
106 150 Form of solemization
Removal of wife
Nonliability
s civil
caused by wife
ORS
ORS
108 045
children
ORS
108 050
in
spouses
108 100
Liability
rules
ORS
Property law of 1943
agreement
and
Page 7
ORS
108 550
same as husband
108 030
ORS
108 090
by
Liability
in fact
108 510
ORS
Conveyances
of husband
108 010
108 020
or civil
injuries
obligations
ORS
108 060
remedies between spouses
transfers
and
liens
between
on of prior dissolutions
ORS
108 110
Petition
ORS
for support
Revocation of election to come under terms of
108 530
Removal of community property
Reliance on spouse
AMENDED COMPLAINT
ORS
Civil
validati
for each other
ORS
record
ORS
106 020
108 080
entireties
ORS
wife
before congregation
of estates
Community
ORS
rights
and
application
of wife s property for husbands
Husband and wife as attorney
and children
husband
of stepparent for expenses
ORS
creation and dissolution
of spouse
solemnization
property of other
property
to
Marriage License
wife s civil
Nonliability
in
041
obligations
Liability
of one spouse
respect of separate
108 040
children
Noninterest
witnesses
disabilities
for other spouse
106
refer
s right
status
by
to deal with property in spouse
name
Rule 311 Presumptions
state
their
life
Same
Plaintiffs
and the
and
their
40 135
privilege
man and one woman
husband
the terms
privileges
and
benefits
wife
under
in
these
and
these state laws
threatens their mutual econo
futures together
couples support
faced
children
children
families
the
mic
are stigmatized
opposite
as opposite
Oregon
same sex couples
sex couples
fall
Same
sex couples
and
Plaintiffs
stability
abilities
and denies
to
them
dignitary
all
in
love
another as different
sex couples
and
to
plan
same sex
reasons
sex
Like opposite
financially
Plaintiffs
relevant
provide
the
same
for the same
legal
shelter
to
their
sex spouses
protections
and obligations
Page 8
sex couples in
same commitment to one
one another emotionally and
romantic
25
to opposite
make
like
emotional
are identical
sex couples
Like different
couples
many
goals and dreams
Plaintiffs
to marriage
when
interpret
ORS
wife
citizens
24
their
and
Exclusion
class
Husband and wife
Rule 505
for married persons created under
23
achieve
n 40 255
Section 5a of Oregon Constitution
laws to exclude same
obligations
ORS
husband
relying upon the definition of marriage as between one
Defendants
Article 15
and
also uses the terms
AMENDED COMPLAINT
same sex couples from equal access to
accessible
to heterosexual
married
26
in
Plaintiffs
Vancouver
BC
Duehmig and
on December 29
2003
they are both
men
Plaintiffs
Despite
Duehmig and
Griesar as a
legally
Griesar want Def
in
28
September 23
Multnomah
Multnomah
sanction Plaint
officially
On
27
license
and
2013
County Oregon
Plaintiffs
economic harms
and
their
humiliation
and
iffs
marriage
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
they are both
citizens
to accept
County
their
officially
treat
under Oregon law
by the
license
women
societal
married
married couple
endants
jurisdictions
legally
Duehmig and
because
who were
stigma caused
significant
by Oregon
emotional
s refusal
and
physic al
to allow same sex
29
Oregon
If
United
Plaintiffs
States Constitution
marriage as valid
injunctive
application
Page 9
relief
to enforce
relief
because
The
ly
rights
seek
they are same
laws against
if
Plaintiffs
requires Defendants to revise the official
AMENDED COMPLAINT
The
to the
sex
declaratory
state
and
forms for the
of registr y of marriage including
in
sex
Amendment
Plaintiffs
and
thereby depriving
is
marriage to heterosexual couples are not enjoined from application
couples
5a
the license to
require them to issue same
certificate
and extend to same sex couples the same
husband
and
wife
under
state
privileges
benefits
sex couples a marriage license
and obligations
extended to
law
30
set
Plaintiffs
incorporate
29 supra as
if
fully
forth herein
31
liberties
that
are protected
by the Due Process Clause
both on
its
fundamental
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
32
liberties
laws
stigmatizes gays
dignity
lesbians
whom
to marry
Oregon
their
respect
the right to choose
fundamental
Plaintiffs
officially
recognized
opposite
33
husband
only to
husband
34
and
and
wife
wife
are created by the provisions
are enforcing
man and one woman and
herein using the terms
obligations
certain benefits
Section 5a to one
husband
Page 10
and
and
applying
wife
are depriving
AMENDED COMPLAINT
marriage
privileges
of Oregon laws identified
afforded
is
permitted
to
herein
and enforcing
as limited to a
and
and
that
will
continue
the Oregon
man and
statutes identified
woman
Defendants
of numerous
rights
secured
1983
35
relying on the terms
husband
and
wife
Section 5a
to exclude
and the
state
marriage from
the due process clause
Amendment
of the Fourteenth
laws
identified
herein
same sex couples or
prevent recognition
violate
to the United
both facially
of the same sex
and as applied to
Plaintiffs
CLAIM
36
fully
set
Plaintiffs
incorporate
Plaintiffs
state this
38
injunctive
Fourteenth
Amendment
provides
1983
The conduct
Section 5a
wife
and
The
to 42
of the laws
and
supra
15
29
as
if
forth herein
37
pursuant
no
exclude
of Defendants and their agents
marriage for same
violate
Plaintiffs
States Constitution
state shall
that
relief
to the United
that
enforceable
in
identified
enforcing
herein
sex couples and restrict
right
capacities
to equal protection
Oregon Consti tution Article
which
them
reference
solely
husband
to registered
39
identified
herein which reference
Page 11
husband
Section 5a
and
wife
that
AMENDED COMPLAINT
sex
of the
same sex
violate
Amendment
and
both facially
40
herein as
opposite
civil
Oregon Constitution Article 15 Section 5a and the Oregon
husband
referencing
sex treats similarly
41
wife
that restrict
civil
sex couples but not to same
they discriminate
on the
basis
individuals
of the same
42
woman
respect
their
continue
United
to deprive
and wife Defendants
officially
recognized
Plaintiffs
of numerous rights secure
US C
IRREPARABLE
set
Plaintiffs
incorporate
Insofar
statutes
provisions
AMENDED COMPLAINT
sex married
as they are
herein which
are depriving
d by the Fourteenth Amendment
limit
and
will
to the
1983
INJURY
forth herein
Page 12
opposite
43
Clause
marriage to husband
legal
to
and couples consisting of
enforcing
These
herein
sex
and sexual orientation
distinguish
providing
state statutes identified
sex couples violate
of sex
of the
sex couples
the extent they limit
because
and
statutes identified
27 supra
as
if
fully
44
Plaintiffs
are
now
Due
severely and irreparably injured by Oregon Constitution
statutes that
limit
violate
the
United
States Constitution
Plaintiffs
marriage to husband
injuries will
be redressed only
would
limit
marriage to only opposite
if
These
Amendment
that
and wife
this
laws
to the
Court declares
and Oregon laws
sex couples unconstitutional
state
Article
herein
identified
and enjoins Defendants from enforcing them
An
45
identified
herein
exists
between
marriage to husband
Defendants are currently enforcing
and wife
Amendment
the
violate
Due
to the United
and
Plaintiffs
that limit
Equal Protection
controversy
statutes
States Constitution
detriment
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE
15
Plaintiffs
respectfully
the Court pursuant
Section 5a of
and
to 28
US C
declaring
the fact that Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
that
are same
it
is
unconstitutional
sex couples
Page 13
the Oregon Constitution violates
Constitution
request
AMENDED COMPLAINT
rights
Amendment
judgment
Article
under the Due Process
to the United
to recognize Plaintiffs
that
out
States
based solely on
and
all
same sex couples the
other
husband
interpreting
obligations
and
afforded
and
wife
opposite
right
Griesar and
under 42
Plaintiffs
1988
to exclude same
denying Plaintiffs
sex couples from the privileges
all
relief
marriages validly entered into by
same sex couples
respectfully
Such other
Defendants
benefits
sex married couples created under the state laws identified
other
and
enjoining
to marry in Oregon and enjoining Defendants from
Duehmig and
injunction
in
herein
Plaintiffs
reque st costs of suit
including
fees
and
DATED
LAW WORKS
LLC
By
Lake James
Perriguey
OSB No
and
DORSAY EASTON
LLP
By
Lea Ann Easton
OSB No
Page 14
AMENDED COMPLAINT
and
881413
983213
Page 1
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013 9 39 02
Subject
amended
Notice
This communication
intended
Sheila
recipient
for
individual
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
this
notified
that
communication
is strictly
it
may
and purpose
and
any attachments
party
is
we
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
not intended
to another
contain
IRS regulations
with
including
avoiding
any attachments
including
Notice 2
AM
complaint
specific
and are hereby
attachments
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
or
herein
Hi Sheila
We
are going through
complaint
Lea Ann
as soon as
final
it
is
hard edits
ready to be
for
amended
filed
complaint
and
plan to
file
it
todayI
will
send you the
in this
for the
final
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
12 4 2013 10 11 33
Subject
RE
Thanks
Sorry
think
that
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
To
Ann
Easton
have
Sheila
a chance
address
mailto
December
amended
Notice
your amendments
Potter
Subject
didn
2013
intended
recipient
any attachments
of
you yesterday
dorsayindianlaw
including
are not
and
to
Thanks
family emergency
But
so much
com
for a specific
distribution
back
complaint
intended
materials
get
9 39 AM
information
the
to
our issues
LEaston
04
communication
This
AM
amended complaint
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Hi Sheila
We
are going
send
Lea
you the
Ann
through
final
final
hard
complaint
edits for amended
as soon
as it
is
complaint
ready
to
and
be filed
plan
to
file
it
today
will
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013 10 13 46
Subject
RE
Sheila
H
AM
amended complaint
hope
Sorry to hear about your family emergency
s okay
all
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Thanks
Sorry
amendments
From
Sent
To
doj state or us
potter
December 04 2013 10 12 AM
Wednesday
didn
have a chance to get back to you yesterday
address our issues Thanks so
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
mailto
amended complaint
Notice
This communication
recipient
for
individual
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
com
avoiding
this
notified
that
communication
is strictly
it
may
and purpose
and
we
any attachments
party
is
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
not intended
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
to another
contain
IRS regulations
with
including
recommending
any attachments
including
Notice 2
think that your
much
dorsayindianlaw
specific
and are hereby
attachments
Sheila
Subject
intended
family emergency But
Wednesday
Potter
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
Hi Sheila
We
are going through
complaint
as soon as
final
it
is
hard edits
ready to be
for
amended
complaint
and
plan to
file
it
todayI
will
send you the
final
filed
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
VON TER STEGGE

H
12 01 12 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
geiger answer
Sheila
Hi Sheila
Do
you have time to
talk
today in the 1 2 30 range
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
am
finishing
up our answer
From
Potter
To
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
RE
do
Will
give
From
Katharine
Sent
Wednesday
To
Potter
Subject
geiger answer
you a call
VON TER
Sheila
at
1 30
STEGGE
December
geiger
H
VON TER STEGGE
12 06 52 PM
Sheila
Katharine
04
mailto
2013
katevts
multco us
12 01 PM
answer
Hi Sheila
Do
you have
Kate
von
Ter
time to
today
in the
1 2 30 range
am finishing
up our answer
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
talk
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
12 4 2013 12 07 55
Subject
RE
Thanks
Dad
getting
better
needs
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
To
Ann
Potter
RE
Sorry
hear
heart
surgery
mailto
LEaston
December
Sheila
Subject
to
open
Easton
PM
amended complaint
04
2013
turns
out
Quadruple
dorsayindianlaw
bypass
This
year just keeps
com
10 14 AM
amended
about
complaint
your family emergency
hope
all
s okay
Ann
Lea
From
Potter
Sent
Wednesday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Thanks
Sheila
amended
Sorry
that
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
didn
Ann
2013
have
mailto
December
Sheila
a chance
address
doj state
LEaston
04
or us
2013
intended
recipient
any attachments
of
you yesterday
dorsayindianlaw
including
are not
and
to
Thanks
family emergency
But
so much
com
for a specific
distribution
back
9 39 AM
intended
the
get
complaint
communication
This
to
our issues
information
materials
potter
10 12 AM
complaint
Easton
amended
Notice
sheila
04
your amendments
Potter
Subject
mailto
Easton
think
To
December
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Hi Sheila
We
are going
send
Lea
you the
through
final
hard
edits for amended
as soon
as it
is
complaint
ready
to
and
plan
to
file
it
today
will
be filed
Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
final
complaint
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013 12 08 25
Subject
RE
Does he
Crap
From
Sent
To
Potter
live
Sheila
Sheila
PM
amended complaint
close by
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
Wednesday
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Thanks
Dad
From
Sent
To
needs open heart surgery turns out
Lea Ann Easton
Potter
This year just keeps ge ing be er
com
dorsayindianlaw
Wednesday
Subject
LEaston
mailto
Quadruple bypass
Sheila
hope
Sorry to hear about your family emergency
s okay
all
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Thanks
Sorry
amendments
From
Sent
To
doj state or us
potter
Wednesday
didn
have a chance to get back to you yesterday
address our issues Thanks so
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
LEaston
mailto
amended complaint
Notice
This communication
recipient
for
individual
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
com
this
notified
that
communication
is strictly
it
may
and purpose
and
any attachments
party
is
we
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
not intended
to another
contain
IRS regulations
with
including
avoiding
any attachments
including
Notice 2
think that your
much
dorsayindianlaw
specific
and are hereby
attachments
Subject
intended
family emergency But
Wednesday
Potter
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
or
herein
Hi Sheila
We
are going through
complaint
as soon as
final
it
is
hard edits
ready to be
for
amended
filed
complaint
and
plan to
file
it
todayI
will
send you the
in this
for the
final
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
12 4 2013 12 10 29
Subject
RE
Thank
god
or whatever
him last night

rearranging
day
From
Lea
Ann
Sent
Wednesday
Potter
Subject
Easton
From
Potter
Sent
Wednesday
Lea
Ann
RE
Dad
needs
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
Ann
2013
mailto
my mom next
dorsayindianlaw
was
able
they
let
to
get
up there
him go home
Thursday
the
and
And
surgery
be with
am
and
the
com
12 08 PM
sheila
04
2013
potter
doj state
or us
12 08 PM
RE
Sorry
hear
complaint
open
Easton
heart
surgery
mailto
LEaston
December
Sheila
Subject
04
2013
turns
out
Quadruple
dorsayindianlaw
bypass
This
year just keeps
com
10 14 AM
amended
about
complaint
your family emergency
hope
all
s okay
Ann
Lea
From
Potter
Sent
Wednesday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Thanks
Sheila
amended
Sorry
that
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
Ann
didn
Easton
sheila
04
2013
have
Sheila
a chance
address
doj state
mailto
LEaston
04
or us
2013
intended
recipient
any attachments
of
you yesterday
dorsayindianlaw
including
are not
and
to
Thanks
family emergency
But
so much
com
for a specific
distribution
back
9 39 AM
intended
the
get
complaint
communication
This
to
our issues
information
materials
potter
10 12 AM
complaint
December
amended
Notice
mailto
your amendments
Potter
Subject
December
Easton
think
To
LEaston
and
before
by
December
amended
better
to
and
be with him and
04
OHSU
Easton
getting
Potter
be at
consult
complaint
close
Sheila
Thanks
To
ll
and
he live
Subject
to
mailto
amended
Does
It
angio
December
Sheila
RE
Crap
To
he does
the
my schedule
following
To
after
PM
amended complaint
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
may contain
purpose
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Hi Sheila
We
are going
through
final
hard
edits for amended
complaint
and
plan
to
file
it
today
will
send
Lea
you the
final
complaint
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
as soon
as it
is
ready
to
be filed
Ann
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
VON TER STEGGE

H
12 58 37 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
Multco
Attachments
Walruff s Answer
Sheila
answer Geiger
Aff to
Complaint doc
Sheila
still
working on
this
but this
is
basically
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
what
we
re up to
JENNY M MADKOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY

FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY
Jenny M Madkour
OSB No 98298
County Attorney
501 S
Hawthorne
Telephone
503
503
Facsimile
Blvd
Oregon 97214
Portland
OSB No
von Ter Stegge
Katharine
mail
032300
Suite 500
3587
9883138
988
jenny
3377
m madkour
multco us
multco us
katevts
Of Attorneys for DefendantRandy Walruff

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Eugene Division
DEANNE L GEIGER and JANINE M

WILLIAM GRIESAR
Civil
Governor
in
of Oregon
her official
official
capacity
Health Statistics
in his official
01834
MC
capacity as
as Attorney General of
WOODWARD
as State Registrar
in
her
Center of
RANDY WALDRUFF
Multnomah
CV
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
capacity
JENNIFER
Oregon
6 13
DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff
JOHN KITZHABER
No
in his official
and
capacity as
County Assessor
Defendants
While the
the United
Page 1
rights
and
ability
States of America
this
of same sex couples to marry
is
of critical
importance
in
all
of
case arises under a factual and legal history unique to Oregon

TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
Multnomah
501 S
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Multnomah
County
finds
in
itself
failing
ruling in
despite
Li et al
its
v State
the unavoidable
to same sex couples in light of the Oregon Supreme Court s
338 Or 376
2005
and Article 15
3 2004
couples on the advice
more than 3000
County began issuing marriage
of the Multnomah
licenses
same sex couples
Multnomah
County Attorney
to same sex couples in 2004
Basic Rights Oregon
State of Oregon for declaratory
marriage as between a husband
and
Multnomah
and the American
injunctive
relief
licenses
court
in this
to same sex couples
level
Multnomah
Multnomah
County ultimately issued
County
Civil Liberties
together
Union
with nine
then sued the
20 of the Oregon Constitution
or gender
Li et al v
State
County to continue to issue marriage
County and the other
but the State of Oregon appealed
to same sex
arguing that certain state statutes describing
and a wife violated Article
case would have allowed
licenses
Multnomah
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
Prevailing
5a of the Oregon Constitution
to same sex couples
history of issuing marriage licenses
On March
position of being subject to suit for currently
the judgment
In
plaintiffs
prevailed
November 2004
at
the
trial
voters passed
Measure 36 amending the Oregon Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one
woman
2004
That amendment
is
set
forth in Article 15
the Supreme Court of Oregon heard argument in Li et al
to same sex couples
marriage licenses
Oregon
in
Multnomah
2004
that
Multnomah
Only
to Plaintiffs
after
County lacked
County stop issuing marriage
In Answer
Page 2
which opposed Multnomah
County
State
s ability
and authority to issue
the clear decision from the Supreme Court of
to same
Multnomah
denies
and
alleges
as
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
did
sex couples
Complaint Defendant Walruff admits
501 S
ultimately ruling in favor
authority to issue the marriage licenses
licenses

In December
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
follows
In response to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint Defendant
Oregon Constitution
states
marriage between one
The
It
is
man and one woman
shall
be
valid
remainder of Paragraph 1 states a legal conclusion
extent the remaining
knowledge
allegations
and
its
admits that Article 15
political
or legally recognized
for which
no response
of Paragraph 1 require a response
or information sufficient
subdivisions
Defendant
5a of the
that
only a
as a marriage
is
To
necessary
states
that
the
he lacks
to admit or deny the allegations
partnerships
set
forth in
OR
S 106 300 106 340
the legal benefits of marriage that accrue
Defendant admits Oregon
afford same
to opposite
Defendant
states
that
who may
some
domestic
but not
legally
all
of
marry
scheme of allowing same sex couples to form domestic partnerships
of law contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs
To
sex couples
sex couples
but not marry treats same sex couples differently than opposite
allegations
admits that Oregon
the extent the remaining
he lacks knowledge
allegations
sex couples
The
remaining
Complaint require no response from
Defendant
Page 3

Multnomah
501 S
request this
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
admits that Plaintiffs
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Court to enjoin
all
enforcement
of Article 15
5a of the Oregon Constitution and
other
all
exclude gay and lesbian people from access to civil marriage
statutes that
identified
effect
themselves as same sex couples
Defendant admits
they seek a declaration
the
Due
United
that Plaintiffs
that
Article 15
though Defendant has no personal knowledge
bring this action
pursuant to 42
lesbian people the equal opportunity to marry under state law
of marriages between people of the same sex
U
is
and 2
Article 15
it
denies
Defendant admits
to prevent Defendants from enforcing
1983 and
Amendment
because
it
to that
denies
that
under
unconstitutional
States Constitution on the basis of the following theories
recognition
have
to the
gay and
equal state
that
Plaintiffs
seek
5a of the Oregon
Constitution
declaration
that
Oregon
statutes that
to gay and lesbian couples under the
Fourteenth
Amendment
to the United
preventing
refer
Due
to
husband
and wife
States Constitution
Defendant admits
also seek a
as applied
Clause of the
that Plaintiffs
seek a
equal access to marriage and the same legal recognition
Page 4

Multnomah
501 S
are seeking
of their union that Oregon extends to
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
opposite
Defendant further admits
sex couples
and obligations
benefits
that
seek access to
that Plaintiffs
Article 15
all
of the federal
prohibits marriage between same sex couples
suit
pursuant to 42
constitutional
rights
and
1983 to enforce what they believe are
liberties
by the United
secured
are seeking to recover
and for any other
action
relief
the Court
their
may
their
fundamental
States Constitution
attorney
fees
costs
bring this
Defendant also
and expenses for
this
order
federal constitutional
this
Court has
questions and
jurisdiction
over
all
is
pursuant to 42
brought
admits this case raises important
1983
Defendant admits
1331 and 1343
Defendant admits
that
venue
is
proper
Defendants Rosenblum and Kitzhaber
further
place
that
that
events
pursuant to 28
maintain official
alleged to have occurred
in
US C
offices
the Complaint took
in
1391 b
Defendant admits
Marion County Oregon and
place
and continue to take
in this district
10
Defendant denies the
sufficient
allegations
set
forth in Paragraph 10 for lack of information
to admit or deny these allegations
11
Page 5

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
allegations
set
sufficient
Defendant
neither Robert
asserts that
William Griesar applied for a marriage license from Multnomah
Duemig
or
County to marry the other
12
Governor
John Kitzhaber
admits
all
allegations
concerning
admits
all
allegations
concerning
admits
all
allegations
concerning
admits
all
allegations
concerning
contained therein
13
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum contained therein
14
State Registrar
Jennifer
Woodward
contained therein
15
him contained therein
16
named
in
Defendants
some
as well as those under their supervision
part for enforcing
Article 15
direction
and the other Defendants are responsible for enforcing
information with which to admit or deny that particular
Plaintiffs
seek
Page 6

all
admits that he and the other
requested relief against
all
Defendants
Multnomah
501 S
Defendant denies
Oregon marriage
allegation
statutes
he
for lack of
Defendant admits
as well as each Defendant
that
that
s officers
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
all
and control are responsible
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
employees
and agents
each Defendant
as well as individuals
supervision
direction
with each Defendant
acting in cooperation
or under
or control
17
Fairness Act created domestic partnerships in Oregon
Defendant admits
that
these laws provide
many
set
but not
admits that the Oregon Family
forth at
ORS
106 300 106 340
all
of
marriage to same sex partners to register a domestic partnership
18
findings
supporting
acknowledge
including
the adoption
that
of the Oregon Family Fairness Act at
has a strong
interest
in
promoting
the families of same sex couples and their children
should be provided
ability
his state
to achieve
their fullest
admits that Oregon
stable
and
legal
ORS
and
that
ll
protection
s legislative
106 305 4
lasting
families
Oregon
and
families
status
and the
potential
19
partnerships differ
from marriage
Individuals
in
Oregon
Oregon may marry
ORS
b
106 325 5
In contrast
in
individuals
Oregon
eligible
the earlier age of 17 with parental consent
until
to marry
pursuant to
106 010
Marriage
ORS
at
ORS
domestic
in that
are not eligible to register for a domestic partnership
they are 18 pursuant to

in
admits that Oregon
in
Oregon requires solemnization
106 010
before of
two
witnesses
pursuant
to
whereas domestic partnerships do not require solemnization to be
effective
Page 7

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Applicants
for a domestic partnership in Oregon must consent
Oregon courts upon dissolution of the partnership

Applicants
to jurisdiction of the
pursuant to
for a marriage license do not have to consent
ORS
106 325
Oregon courts upon divorce
ORS
106 041 4
statement
provides
that
is
The
laws of
the State of Oregon affirm your right to enter into marriage and at the same time
to live within the marriage free from violence and abuse
similar
provision
in
There
Oregon law with regard to the application
is
no same or
process for Oregon
20
allegations
set
sufficient
21
allegations
set
sufficient
22
Paragraph 22 of the Complaint
necessary
To
states
he lacks knowledge
that
states
a legal conclusion
for which
no responsive pleading
allegations
is
Defendant
23
sufficient
allegations
set
24
Page 8

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
In response to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint Defendants admit that Plaintiffs
Nelson applied for a marriage
Oregon
Defendant admits
license
that
no
on or about September 23
was
license
2013
issued to the Plaintiffs
in
Multnomah
because
Geiger and
County
they are a same sex
couple
25
sufficient
allegations
set
26
allegations
set
actions for lack of information sufficient
that
Plaintiff
seek relief
that
forth in Paragraph 26 regarding Defendants
requiring Defendants to revise the official
such
Defendant admits
requires Defendants to recognize same sex marriage as valid as a
matter of federal law within the State of Oregon
future
that
Defendant admits
that Plaintiffs
state
same sex couples are able to marry
in
seek to relief
for license to marry and
Oregon
ANSWER TO CLAIM ONE DUE PROCESS

27
Defendant references and reincorporates
here
its
responses to Paragraphs 1 26
supra
of
the Complaint
28
the
legal
Page 9
argument
that
Article 15

Multnomah
501 S
the
Due
Process
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
violates
advance
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Clause of the United
asserts that this
States Constitution
depriving
Plaintiffs
of fundamental
Court can and should determine whether Article 15
Constitution violates the
Due
Process Clause of the United
Defendant
liberties
5a of the Oregon
States Constitution
29
the legal argument that Article 15
of the United
while allowing individuals
in
opposite
set
the
sex relationships
to do both
Due
Process Clause
with their loved ones
Defendant
asserts that
States Constitution
this
violates
Defendant denies the remaining
forth in Paragraph 29 for lack of information sufficient
who
the right to choose
Due
violates
States Constitution by denying gay and lesbian individuals
to marry and the right to enter into officially
advance
the
allegations
30
argument
Due
that
as enforced by Defendants
Article 15
States Constitution
are acting under color of state law while enforcing
Defendant
asserts that this
Article 15
Due

Multnomah
501 S
Portland
violates
an
the
Defendants
5a of the Oregon
States Constitution
EQUAL PROTECTION
County Attorney
Hawthorne
that
advance
ANSWER TO CLAIM TWO

Page 10
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
31
Defendant
30
supra
realleges
and reincorporates
by reference
its
responses to Paragraphs 1 though
of the Complaint
32
legal
argument
that
Article 15
asserts that this
States Constitution
both on
violates
its
Constitution violates the Equal Protection
advance
Defendant
5a of the Oregon
States Constitution
33
Oregon Constitution
restricts
marriage eligibility
in
Oregon to opposite
admits that the Oregon Constitution prevents Deanna
marrying one another
Duehmig and
that
Oregon
Defendant admits
Geiger and Janine
that
the Oregon
sex couples
Nelson from
prohibiting same
5a of the Oregon Constitution allows opposite
sex couples from marrying and further
treatment
is
should determine whether
Article 15
Defendant
legally
Defendant admits
sex couples to marry while
that Plaintiffs
Defendant
5a of the
Constitution prevents Robert
William Griesar from legally marrying one another in Oregon
Article 15
this different
in
advance
asserts that this
violates
an argument
that
Court can and
States Constitution
34
Page 11

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
legal
argument
that
Article 15
violates
advance
States Constitution by discriminating against same sex couples on the basis
of gender
Defendant
asserts that this
the Oregon Constitution violates the Equal Protection
5a of
States Constitution
35
legal
argument
enforcement
violates
that
that
by Defendants of Article 15
Defendant
asserts that
of the Oregon Constitution violates
this
States Constitution
Article 15
5a of the Oregon
Defendants are acting under color of state law while enforcing
Constitution
advance
5a
States
Constitution
ANSWER TO ALLEGATIONS OF IRREPARABLE
INJURY
36
reference
its
35 supra
realleges
and reincorporates
by
of the Complaint
37
credible legal argument that Article 15
States Constitution
Page 12

Multnomah
501 S
Portland
the
Defendant
Due
Process
asserts that
violates
this
the
County Attorney
Hawthorne
violates
advance
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Due
Process Clause and Equal Protection
denies
the remaining
allegations
set
States Constitution
Defendant
to
admit or deny these allegations
38
judicially
cognizable
the
violates
Due
controversy
Article 15
sufficient
as to whether
exists
allegations
set
admits that an actual and
States Constitution
In further Answer
AFFIRMATIVE
to plaintiffs
DEFENSES
Complaint and
AS DEFENDANT WALRUFF
defendant asserts as follows
39
First Affirmative Defense

Failure to State a Claim
Plaintiffs
have
to state a claim upon which relief
failed
may be
granted
40
Second Affirmative Defense

Qualified Immunity
Defendant Walruff
established rights of which
is
qualifiedly
immune from
suit
because
a reasonable person would have
he violated no
clearly
known
41
Third Affirmative Defense

Statute
Plaintiffs
Page 13
of Limitations
claims are outside the applicable statute of limitations and are therefore

Multnomah
501 S
Portland
County Attorney
Hawthorne
expired
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
42
Fourth Affirmative Defense

Ripeness
Plaintiffs
claims
may
not be justiceable for lack of ripeness
43
Fifth Affirmative Defense
Immunity
44
Defendant
is
entitled
to immunity from suit because
due to the current
state
of the law
he cannot
issue marriage licenses
to same sex couples without violating the Oregon Constitution and
106 110 which makes
it
husband
the Administration respectfully
the Court determines to be just and proper
relief
he not be ordered to pay any attorney
Because
Multnomah
direction
other than as a
Defendant Walruff also
licenses
to stop from the courts and the electorate
in fact
should not
requests that this Court grant any and
fees to Plaintiffs
County issued marriage
Defendant Walruff
through
cause
to individuals
and a wife
WHEREFORE
that
a violation of law to issue marriage licenses
ORS
now be
respectfully
all
requests
should they prevail in this action
to same sex couples until
receiving clear
as a matter of equity the County
ordered to pay fees because
by and
the County
is
not the
of any harm to Plaintiffs
Defendant Walruff
reserves the right to add further affirmative defenses
as discovery
commences
Page 14

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
DATED
this
day of December
2013
Respectfully
submitted
M MADKOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY

MULTNOMAH COUNTY OREGON
JENNY
FOR
Jenny
Jenny
Madkour
Madkour
OSB No
98298
County Attorney
Katharine
von Ter Stegge
OSB No
032300
Of Attorneys for Defendant Walruff
Page 15

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
VON TER STEGGE

H Lake Perriguey
1 05 29 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
Geiger caption
FYI my client
name
is
Sheila
misspelled
it
Walruff
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
No
Lea Ann Easton
From
Potter
To
H
VON TER STEGGE
1 36 35 PM
Sheila
Katharine
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
RE
Geiger caption
Call you in a minute

From
Katharine
Sent
Wednesday
To
Potter
Subject
VON TER
Sheila
04
Lake
mailto
2013
Perriguey
katevts
multco us
1 05 PM
Lea
Ann
Easton
Geiger caption
FYI
my client
Kate
von
Ter
s name
is
misspelled
it
s Walruff
No
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
STEGGE
December
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Katharine
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 4 2013 1 42 28
Subject
Amended
Attachments
2013 12 04 PLD
Notice
This communication
intended
for
specific
To comply
communication
purpose
of
Mr
is
Walruff
the
in
first
notified
party
amended
Dorsay Easton LLP
Portland
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
and
that
contain
is
we
protected
we
not intended
filed
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
is strictly
any transaction
complaint
future pleadings
Lea Ann
this
any attachments
Thank you
Suite 440
any attachments
to another
all
Amended Complaint pdf
IRS regulations
including
recommending
Attached
with
avoiding
First
individual
Notice 2
Sheila
PM
including
and are hereby
Potter
Complaint
you should delete
recipient
attachments
VON TER STEGGE
to
US
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
today
in
federal tax advice
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
We
the Geiger v Kitzhaber
will
correct
the spelling of
Lake James
H Perriguey
OSB
No
983213
lake law works com
LAW WORKS LLC

OR
Portland
97205 1718
503 227 1928
Telephone
503 334 2340
Facsimile
Lea
Ann
Easton
OSB No
881413
DORSAY
1
SW
EASTON
LLP
Portland
OR
97204
503 790 9060
Telephone
503 790 9068
Facsimile

DISTRICT
OF OREGON
EUGENE
DIVISION

Case
No 6 13 cv 01834 MC
WILLIAM GRIESAR

DECLARATORY INJUNCTIVE OR
OTHER RELIEF
FIRST
Plaintiffs
v
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
of
in
Oregon
ROSENBLUM
capacity
as
Oregon JENNIFER
in her official
capacity
State Registrar Center for Health
WALDRUFF
capacity
ELLEN
in her official
Attorney General of
WOODWARD
his official
and
as
Statistics
RANDY
as

Defendants
Page 1
FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs
Deanna
Geiger and Janine
Nelson and
Duehmig and William
Robert
Griesar
complain of Defendants and allege
INTRODUCTION
Oregons
Constitution states
It is the policy of
subdivisions that only a marriage between one
man
and one
as a marriage. Oregon Constitution Article 15
recognized
against gay and lesbian Oregonians
who
Oregon and
woman
5a
were married legally
in
Oregon statutes
eg
to
husband and wife have been interpreted
in
Oregon
exclude
This domestic
partnership
to
106.041 and
same sex
law extends
be valid or legally
to
This
other jurisdictions
marry in Oregon
106.150
that refer
couples from civil
some
to
political
This provision discriminates
who want
provision also discriminates against gay and lesbian Oregonians
shall
its
institution
of
samesex
lesbian and gay couples only
marry one another
ORS
106.300 106.340
people denies them the fundamental
Amendment
statutes in
Page 2
who
For these reasons
of Article 15
liberties
Oregons
marriage
Plaintiffs
5a of the Oregon Constitution and the application
a manner
that
FIRST
and enforcement
AMENDED COMPLAINT
of
Oregon
marriage
5
seeking
the
Plaintiffs
a declaration
Due
Process
the United
Article 15
who
bring this action
Clause and under the Equal Protection
state
law and
it
pursuant to 42
it
is
under
unconstitutional
1983
Amendment
to
denies equal state recognition
the Defendants from enforcing this provision
Constitution
Plaintiffs
also seek
a declaration
that
Oregon
statutes identified
husband and wife, and by implication restrict marriage to only a
unconstitutional
as applied to
same sex
couples under the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
permanent injunction preventing
from equal access
U SC
denies gay and lesbian people the equal opportunity to
and a permanent injunction preventing
of Oregons
refer to
that
marry under
same sex
to
to
Due
man
herein
which
and a
woman
are
these statutes
that
exclude
and
Plaintiffs
marriage
Plaintiffs
seek equal access to marriage and the
union that the State of Oregon extends to opposite sex couples
federal benefits and obligations that they are denied because
same
legal
Plaintiffs
of Article 15
recognition
of their
seek access
all
of the
5a of the Oregon
Constitution
8
fundamental
people
Plaintiffs
constitutional
Plaintiffs
and for any other
Page 3
bring this lawsuit
FIRST
to
42
U SC
1983 to enforce
their
rights and liberties that the United States Constitution ensures for all
also seek recovery
relief
pursuant
the Court
of their attorneys
may order
AMENDED COMPLAINT
fees costs and expenses for
this
action
JURISDICTION
U SC
This case raises questions
1983
This Court has
AND VENUE
States and 42
under the Constitution of the United
jurisdiction
over all claims for relief pursuant to 28
U SC
1331 and 1343
10
Venue
Rosenblum
is
and Kitzhaber maintain
proper in this district
and are continuing
official
U SC
offices in Marion
1391 b
County Oregon
because a substantial part of the events giving
to occur
because Defendants
rise to
Venue
is
also
the claims occurred
in this district
THE PARTIES
11
Plaintiffs
Deanna
committed relationship for 31 years
County Oregon
12
Canada
in
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
2003
want
to
Plaintiffs
women who
are residents of Oregon and reside in
marry one another
in
are parents of two teenagers
residents of Oregon and reside in
Plaintiffs
men who
and
officially
couples
who
capacity the Governor
is
FIRST
children are
Duehmig and
treat
in
Griesar
them the same as
is
law
the Governor
the chief executive
officer
of the State of
of the State of
responsibility to ensure that the States laws are enforced
Page 4
were married
are Oregon citizens married under the laws of other jurisdictions and
sanction Plaintiffs
13
their
Plaintiffs
heterosexual
Multnomah
Oregon
Plaintiffs
have been in a
AMENDED COMPLAINT
fairly
Oregon
Oregon
It
In his official
is
his
Defendant Kitzhaber
is
U SC
14
her official
capacity
is
the Attorney General of the State of
the Attorney General is the chief legal officer of the State of
her duty to ensure the States laws are enforced
Defendant Rosenblum
fairly
is
Oregon
Oregon
In
It
is
U SC
of 42
15
Statistics
the State Registrar
is
marriages along with births and deaths in the vital
Defendant Woodward
is
statistic
It
is
of Oregon and is the manager
her duty to record all
U SC
Oregon
16
Waldruff
in
is
responsible
for maintaining vital
responsible
relief
Defendants
state
law
at all
for the enforcement
Multnomah County Randy
records of marriages and issuing marriage licenses
Defendant Waldruff
17
is
their
is
times relevant
to this
U SC
complaint
of Oregon Constitution Article 15
of 42
and control are
5a and Oregon laws The
requested in this action is sought against each Defendant as well as against each
Defendants
Defendant
Page 5
employees and agents and against
officers
s under
their
FIRST
supervision at their direction
AMENDED COMPLAINT
all
with
FACTS
18
same sex
many but
couples
19
that
legislative
t his
including the families of
should be provided
to
106.300 106.340
These laws provide
to
state
findings supporting the adoption
of the Act at
same sex
couples and their children and that
Oregon families
ll
with the opportunity to obtain necessary legal protections
In addition
To
and
106.150
its
include a provision that
17 yearolds
Domestic
partnerships
ways
Oregons
marriage statutes
ORS
in
front of two witnesses
ORS
106.010
106.010
require no solemnization
Applicants for a domestic
ORS
106.325
can marry with parental consent
very inception
anticipate
and the
and unequal legal framework the Acts
ORS
courts requiring the parties to consider
at
status
qualify for a domestic partnership both individuals seeking to enter into a
106.305
provisions differ from the provisions in Oregon marriage statutes in the following
however
ORS
achieve their fullest potential.
20
samesex
of the benefits and obligations of marriage
not all
Oregons
4 acknowledge
ability
ORS
domestic partnerships.
Act created a separate and unequal institution of
106.325
partnership
must consent
to jurisdiction
of the Oregon
the possibility of a future dissolution of their partnership
State law does not force opposite sex couples to
jurisdiction
at
the time they
ORS
106.041
4 provides
statement Neither you nor your spouse
Page 6
FIRST
that
is
AMENDED COMPLAINT
The laws
of the State of
Oregon affirm your
free from violence
and abuse.
There
is
no similar requirement
Article 15
22
The
Oregon marital laws
following
couples applying
ORS 106 041
civil
disabilities
Marriage License application record
wifes civil
caused by wife
of children
children
ORS
ORS
Noninterest
ORS
108.045
108.040
of one spouse in property of other
ORS
of spouse and children rules
Community
Property law of
agreement
and ORS
ORS
1943
ORS
estates
ORS
in fact
108.510
ORS
Presumptions and
ORS
of husband for civil
of family and education
obligations
ORS
108.060
108.080 Civil remedies between spouses
for each other
Revocation
and
transfers
ORS
of election
prior
liens
between
dissolutions
ORS
108.110 Petition for support
to
come under
terms of
108.530 Removal of community property status by
right to
deal with property
also uses the terms husband
n 40.255 Rule
505
and wife
AMENDED COMPLAINT
in spouses
ORS
40.135
Husband and wife privilege
relying upon the definition of marriage as between one
FIRST
ORS
by entireties validation of
108.550 Reliance on spouses
Page 7
108.090 Conveyances
108.100 Husband and wife as attorney
Defendants
Liability
108.050 Nonliability of wifes property for husbands
spouses creation and dissolution of
311
108.030
of stepparent for expenses
Liability
respect of separate property
name
Liability
rights same as husbands
ORS
108.020 Nonliability for other spouses obligations
injuries
man
ORS
husband and wife
refer to
106.150 Form of solemization witnesses solemnization before congregation
108.010 Removal of wifes
Rule
same sex
5a of Oregons Constitution defines marriage as between one
106.020 Prohibited and void marriage
in
for
woman
and one
ORS
time to live within the marriage
laws
for recognition under the domestic partnership
21
same
enter into marriage and at the
right to
man
and one
woman
under
Article 15
laws
to
5a of Oregon Constitution
exclude same
the terms husband
sex couples from marriage and the privileges
married persons created under
23
interpret
these state
goals and
dreams
in
these state
benefits and obligations for
laws
Exclusion from marriage by Oregon law undermines
achieve their life
and wife
the Plaintiffs
abilities
to
stability and denies them
secondclass
and
Plaintiffs
their
are stigmatized and relegated to
children
citizens
24
to
Plaintiffs
Same sex
marriage
are identical
couples
make
couples Like opposite sex couples
their
to
in all
relevant
the same commitment to one another as opposite sex
same sex
couples fall
in love build their lives together plan
samesex
when
children
like
emotional
families
opposite
romantic
of the federal
26
Vancouver
dignitary
Plaintiffs
reasons
same
ability
seek equal access to marriage for the
and
to
provide
the
same
same sex
benefits protections and obligations accessible
legal
same
shelter
to
their
Duehmig and
BC on December
to
because they are both
FIRST
couples from equal access to
to heterosexual married
law
Plaintiffs
Defendants refuse
Page 8
and
Oregons
couples under federal
in
sex couples
sex couples seek the
as opposite sex spouses
25
many
Same
recognize
men
Griesar are citizens
29 2003
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
Despite
AMENDED COMPLAINT
who were
legally
married
Duehmig and
Duehmig and
of Oregon
Griesar as a legally
married couple
Griesar want Defendants
to
accept
their
marriage license and desire to have
the State of Oregon and
Multnomah County
officially
treat
them the same as heterosexual couples who are Oregon citizens married under the laws of other
jurisdictions
27
license in
and
officially
On
sanction Plaintiffs
law
23 2013
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
were denied a marriage license by the
September
Multnomah County
28
economic
Clerk because
Plaintiffs
harms
and
their
women
they are both
extended families suffer significant emotional physical and
humiliation and societal stigma caused
by Oregons
to allow
refusal
same
sex
29
Oregon
If
5a
is
marriage to heterosexual couples are not enjoined
from access
to
marriage solely because
couples Defendants will continue to enforce these unconstitutional
thereby depriving Plaintiffs of their constitutional
The
relief
marriage as valid as a matter of federal law within the State of
injunctive relief
Plaintiffs
seek requires Defendants
marry the
application
for license to
marry and
certificate
to
they are
Page 9
and wife under
FIRST
state
in
samesex
laws against Plaintiffs
to
recognize
Oregon
Amendment
to
the
samesex
The declaratory
and
revise the official state forms for the
of registry of marriage including the license to
require them to issue
same sex
couples a marriage license
and extend to same sex couples the same privileges benefits and obligations extended
husband
if
from application
rights under the Fourteenth
sought requires Defendants
and
law
AMENDED COMPLAINT
to
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF CLAIM
30
set
Plaintiffs
incorporate
29
supra as
if
fully
forth herein
31
Due
are protected by the
32
stigmatizes
and
respect
gays
stature
33
afforded
officially
to
and
its
choose
recognized
whom
to
and one
the terms husband
color of state
law
opposite sex married couples by denying gay
are enforcing
and applying and enforcing
Amendment
to
that
marriage is permitted
and privileges afforded to
identified
herein
to
the United
5a
to
the Oregon statutes identified herein using
and wife as limited to a man and a
secured by the Fourteenth
by
marriage
as Defendants
woman
liberties
marry Oregon laws
families by denying
and wife and certain benefits obligations
Insofar
fundamental
Plaintiffs
and wife are created by the provisions of Oregon laws
34
liberties that
5a deprives
their
fundamental
Plaintiffs
only to husband
man
right to
lesbians their children
and lesbian couples equal access
husband
5a deprives
Process Clause both on
denying gay and lesbian individuals the
one
ONE DUE PROCESS
woman
deprive
Defendants
Plaintiffs
acting
under
of numerous rights
U SC
1983
35
5a and the
state
on the terms husband and wife to exclude marriage from
recognition
FIRST
identified
same sex
AMENDED COMPLAINT
both
facially
herein relying
couples or prevent
they were entered by individuals of the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Page 10
laws
same
sex violate
and as applied to Plaintiffs
the
CLAIM
36
set
incorporate
Plaintiffs
TWO
EQUAL PROTECTION
35 supra as
if
fully
forth herein
37
Plaintiffs
state
this
cause of action against Defendants
38
The
pursuant to 42
of the
15
Fourteenth
U SC
1983
laws The conduct
5a
Amendment
to
provides
that
of Defendants
and
marriage for
capacities
and injunctive relief
wife that exclude
in their official
same sex
domestic partnership violate Plaintiffs
no
state
their
shall
agents in enforcing
identified
herein which reference husband
couples and restrict
right to
enforceable
equal protection
them solely
to
and
registered
39
herein which
reference husband
prevent recognition
and wife
violate the equal protection
to
5a
that
preclude marriage for
same sex
they were entered by individuals of the
Amendment
both
facially
identified
couples or
same
sex
and as applied
Plaintiffs
40
referencing
treats
husband
and wife
that restrict
similarly situated people differently
opposite sex couples but not
41
to
same
5a and the Oregon
civil
marriage
providing civil
sex
marriage to
sex couples
FIRST
herein as
individuals of the opposite
5a and
marriage to heterosexuals violate the Equal Protection
Page 11
to
statutes identified
AMENDED COMPLAINT
all state
statutes
Clause because they discriminate on the
basis of
woman
sex
These
provisions distinguish between couples consisting
legal
and couples consisting
42
of individuals of the
them the same dignity respect
and
stature
children
and
their
recognized
officially
enforcing
to
husband and wife Defendants
to
deprive
States
Plaintiffs
of numerous
5a and Oregon
statutes
acting under color of state
rights
Constitution in violation of 42
law
secured by the Fourteenth
U SC
man
and a
same sex
their
afforded
of a
families by denying
opposite sex married
Insofar as they are
herein which limit marriage
Amendment
to
the United
1983
IRREPARABLE INJURY
43
set
the
incorporate
42
supra as
if
fully
forth herein
44
15
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
5a and by Oregon
Due
Process
Constitution
are
now
severely and irreparably injured by Oregon Constitution Article
statutes that limit
marriage to husband and wife These state laws violate
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
Plaintiffs
Constitution Article 15
injuries
will be redressed only
5a unconstitutional
45
An
actual
this
and Oregon laws
marriage to only opposite sex couples unconstitutional
if
FIRST
Court declares Oregon
identified
herein that would limit
as applied to Plaintiffs and enjoins
them
and
judicially
cognizable
controversy
Defendants regarding whether Oregon Constitution Article 15
Page 12
to the United States
AMENDED COMPLAINT
exists
between
Plaintiffs
5a and Oregon
statutes
and
herein that limit
identified
Due
marriage to husband and wife violate the
Defendants are currently enforcing
to
Process
Clause and the
these state laws to Plaintiffs
detriment
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE
Plaintiffs
respectfully request
the Court pursuant to 28
5a of the Oregon Constitution violates
U SC
Plaintiffs
rights
declaring
that
Plaintiffs
are
in
it
is
couples
Due
that
Article 15
Process Clause and
and
for Defendants to refuse based solely on the fact that
unconstitutional
same sex
to
under the
judgment
to
recognize
Plaintiffs
out of state
valid marriages as marriages
Oregon
2
and
all
other
samesex
interpreting husband
obligations
and
afforded
injunction enjoining Defendants
3
under 42
and wife
to
exclude
Plaintiffs
Page 13
same sex
couples from the privileges
opposite sex married couples created under the
Griesar and
U SC
other
samesex
state
laws
benefits and
identified
all
herein
marriages validly entered into by Plaintiffs
couples in another jurisdiction
respectfully request costs of suit including reasonable attorneys
1988 and
FIRST
Plaintiffs
couples the right to marry in Oregon and enjoining Defendants from
Duehmig and
denying
further relief
to
which they are entitled and
AMENDED COMPLAINT
fees
4
DATED
Such other
this 4th
relief
as the Court
deems
appropriate
day of December 2013
By s
Lake James
Lake James
H Perriguey
H Perriguey
OSB
No
LAW WORKS LLC

503 227 1928
Telephone
Facsimile
503 334 2340
lake law works com

By s
Lea
Lea
Ann
Ann
Easton
Easton
DORSAY
1
SW
OSB
No
EASTON
881413
LLP
Portland
OR
Telephone
Facsimile
97204
503 790 9060

503 790 9068
Page 14
FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
983213
hereby
certify that
on December
the following
2013
CMECF system which
Clerk of the Court using the
registered in the
CMECF system
for this matter
electronically filed the foregoing with the
will send notice of such filings to all parties
also certify that
e mailed the
foregoing to
parties
Sheila Potter Deputy
Oregon Department
Chief Counsel
of Justice
Sheila potter doj state or us

Counsel for Defendants Rosenblum
Katharine
and Kitzhaber
von Ter Stegge
Multnomah County
katharine
Woodward
Attorneys
Office
von terstegge co multnomah or us
Counsel for Defendant Waldruff
DORSAY
By
EASTON LLP
Lea
1
Ann
Lea
Ann
SW
Fax
Easton
OSB
881413
Portland
Phone
Easton
OR
97258 2005
503 790 9060
503 790 9068
EMail leaston dorsayindianlaw com
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013 1 45 36
Subject
Re Amended
Sheila
Lake Perriguey
PM
Complaint
Lea Ann
Can you
I
m not
me
tell
what
s different
getting any electronic
in
the amended complaint
Has
anything
else
been
fi
led in
PACER
I just
realized
notices in the case
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
500
Suite
Multnomah
Portland
503 988 3377
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Wed
Dec 4 2013
at
1 42
PM
This communication
Notice
including
and purpose

disclosure
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
may
any attachments
and
is
by law
protected
contain privileged
If
you are not the
com
or con
wrote
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
copying
dorsayindianlaw
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
avoiding
with
including
penalties
IRS
regulations
any attachments
under the
Internal
any transaction
or matter addressed
Attached
first
Mr
is
Walruff
Thank you
Lea Ann
the
in
all
we
Revenue
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
amended complaint
future pleadings
is
inform you that any
that
we
filed
today in the Geiger v Kitzhaber
We
will
correct
the spelling of
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
Portland
LLP
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Katharine
CC
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
RE
No ce
This
intended
communica on
a specic
for
should delete
Amended Complaint
and
is
privileged or
by law
protected
If
conde
you are
copying
may contain
any a achments
including
communica on and
this
any disclosure
VON TER STEGGE

H Lake Perriguey
1 58 44 PM
Sheila
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
hereby no ed that
on based on
of any ac
it
strictly
is
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
we
any a achments
inform you that any

is
party any transac
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
Code
avoiding
or
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ii
ce contained
ed
or recom
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
Kate
In
response to the email dialogue with Sheila that started on Nov 21
factual
basis of
Amended
the complaint to allege specic

ve added specic
We
Complaint
added Paragraph 23 on how Defendants
state
interpret
requested
These are the substan ve changes
We
to clean up and use consistent
also tried
opposed
And we
In
in
about which specic
These changes are
statutes
state statutes
st
state statutes
n Paragraph 21 22 and 23
Paragraph 22 that use the
erms husband
We
those terms based on 5a of Constu on
terminology in reference
we amended the
to same sex cou
ples
and
pages 6 7 of
wife
ve also claried
and
the relief
and opposite sex couples as
to heterosexual couples or gay couples
tried
to make sure
terms of ling
we
spelled
we
other pleadings
everyone
have
led
names
correctly
the waivers
which regreably
of service
we
and the FRCP
26
ailed at
disclosure
statement and that s
it
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Subject
Sheila
Re
mailto katevts
multco
us
Wednesday
Lake
Perriguey
Amended Complaint
Lea Ann
Can you
I
m not
tell
me
what
s different
in
notices in the case
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
Has
anything
else
been
fi
led in
PACER
I just
realized
katevts
multco us
On Wed
Dec 4 2013
at
1 42
PM
This communication
Notice
including
and purpose

disclosure
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
may
any attachments
and
is
by law
protected
contain privileged
If
you are not the
com
or con
wrote
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
copying
dorsayindianlaw
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
Attached
Mr
is
in
first
all
Portland
Easton
1
Columbia
97258
we
Revenue
is
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
amended complaint
LLP
SW
OR
Internal
future pleadings
Lea Ann
Suite 440
regulations
any attachments
under the
Thank you
Dorsay
IRS
or matter addressed
the
Walruff
with
including
that
we
filed
We
will
correct
the spelling of
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Katharine
CC
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
RE
VON TER STEGGE

H Lake Perriguey
2 01 13 PM
Sheila
Amended Complaint
Kate
also forgot
would
set
to
men on
we
the court about se ng up
contacted
up the conference
aer an answer
is
ini
al
scheduling
co
nference
and were
told that
the clerk
led
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Wednesday
VON TER STEGGE

Sheila H
Lake Perriguey
Katharine
Cc
Potter
Subject
No ce
RE Amended Complaint
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
this
any disclosure
communica on and
and
is
privileged or
by law
protected
If
conde
you are
copying
may contain
any a achments
including
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
hereby no ed that
on based on
of any ac
it
strictly
is
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
we
any a achments
inform you that any

is
party any transac
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
Code
avoiding
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ed
or recom
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
Kate
st
In
response to the email dialogue with Sheila that started on Nov 21
factual
basis of
Amended
the complaint to allege specic
Complaint
We
ve added specic
added Paragraph 23 on how Defendants

requested
We
And we
In
statutes
interpret
in
These changes are
To
n Paragraph 21 22 and 23
Paragraph 22 that use the
erms husband
We
those terms based on 5a of Constu on
to clean up and use consistent
terminology in reference
tried
to make sure
we
spelled
other pleadings
we
everyone
have
led
names
correctly
the waivers
to same sex cou
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
Wednesday
Lea Ann Easton
mailto katevts
multco
which regreably
of service
Lea Ann
Sent
we amended the
and
pages 6 7 of
wife
ve also claried
and
the relief
ples
and opposite sex couples as
to heterosexual couples or gay couples
terms of ling
From
state statutes
These are the substan ve changes
also tried
opposed
state
state statutes
about which specic
us
we
and the FRCP
26
ailed at
disclosure
statement and that s
it
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Subject
Re
Lake
Perriguey
Amended Complaint
Lea Ann
Can you
I
m not
me
tell
what
s different
in
Has
anything
else
been
fi
led in
PACER
I just
realized
notices in the case
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
500
Suite
Multnomah
Portland
503 988 3377
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Wed
Dec 4 2013
at
1 42
PM
This communication
Notice
including
and purpose

disclosure
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
may
any attachments
and
is
by law
protected
contain privileged
If
you are not the
com
or con
wrote
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
copying
dorsayindianlaw
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
avoiding
with
including
penalties
IRS
regulations
any attachments
under the
Internal
any transaction
or matter addressed
Attached
first
Mr
is
the
Walruff
in
all
future pleadings
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
Portland
LLP
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
Revenue
is
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
amended complaint
Thank you
we
that
we
filed
We
will
correct
the spelling of
From
Potter
To
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
RE
m off
my call
From
Katharine
Sent
Wednesday
To
Lea
Cc
Potter
Ann
Subject
Ann
Can
you tell
Kate
Ter
503
988
3138
Lake
Dec
County
katevts
look
through
the
amended
multco us
1 46 PM
Perriguey
m not
in the
getting
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
988
500
katevts
2013
at
co
This
Multnomah
Has
notices
1 42 PM
Lea
com mailto
communication
are not
intended
recipient
any attachments
of
Ann
anything
in the
else been
filed
in
case
Attorney
97214
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
multco us
Easton
LEaston
including
for a specific
and
OR
County
intended
distribution
complaint
fax
information
the
amended
any electronic
Portland
3377
dorsayindianlaw
materials
a minute to
Stegge
Hawthorne
Notice
s different
SE
Wed
take
mailto
me what
501
LEaston
to
2013
Complaint
Assistant
katevts
04
Amended
just realized
von
STEGGE
December
Senior
On
do you want
Easton
Re
Amended Complaint
VON TER
Sheila
Lea
PACER
but
H
VON TER STEGGE
2 01 14 PM
Sheila
Katharine
or the
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
com
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Attached
correct
Thank
Lea
is
the
the
first
amended
spelling of
you
Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
1 SW
OR
LLP
Columbia
97258
Mr
complaint
Walruff
that
in all
we
filed
future
today
pleadings
in the
Geiger v
Kitzhaber
We
will
VON TER STEGGE

H
2 03 03 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
Re Amended
No
m so
Sheila
Complaint
pissed off that they changed
the paragraph numbering that I need to give
myself a time out
Let s talk
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
Dec 4 2013
m o my
From
Sent
500
multco us
On Wed
I
Suite
but
call
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Sheila
PM
Potter
do you want
Sheila
sheila
potter
to take a minute to look through the
mailto katevts
multco
wrote
doj state or us
amended
us
To
Re
2 01
VON TER STEGGE
Wednesday
Subject
at
Lake
Perriguey
Amended Complaint
Lea Ann
Can you
I
m not
tell
me
what
s different
in
Has
anything
else
been
fi
led in
PACER
I just
realized
notices in the case
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
On Wed
Notice
Suite
Dec 4 2013
at
1 42
This communication
PM
Lea Ann Easton
including
and purpose
LEaston
any attachments
and
is
protected
may
by law
dorsayindianlaw
contain privileged
If
you are not the
com
or con
wrote
fidential
intended recipient
notified
you should
that
any
disclosure
copying
or the taking
it
is
strictly
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
with
including
penalties
IRS
any attachments
under the
Internal
any transaction
or matter addressed
Attached
first
Mr
is
the
Walruff
in
all
we
regulations
is
inform you that any
Code
Revenue
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
amended complaint
that
we
filed
We
will
correct
the spelling of
future pleadings
Thank you
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Suite 440
Portland
LLP
Easton
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
RE
m told
that
From
Katharine
Wednesday
Potter
Subject
No
von
Ter
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
Wed
Dec
From
Katharine
Sent
Wednesday
Lea
Cc
Potter
Ann
Subject
Ann
Can
you tell
Kate
von
but
paragraph
numbering
Multnomah
OR
County
that
need
to
give
myself
Attorney
97214

Potter
or us mailto
do you want
STEGGE
04
to
Sheila
sheila
take
mailto
2013
Lake
multco us
H
potter
doj state
a minute to
katevts
look
or us
through
multco us mailto
wrote
the
amended
katevts
multco us
anything
else been
1 46 PM
me what
s different
just realized
Ter
988
tel
3138
mailto
4
County
in the
getting
Attorney
Suite
503
500
988
katevts
amended
complaint
any electronic
2013
at
Multnomah
Portland
3138
co
Has
notices
503
Lea
com mailto
communication
OR
988
County
in the
filed
in
case
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
3377
1 42 PM
dorsayindianlaw
This
m not
Stegge
503
Dec
Perriguey
Complaint
Hawthorne
Notice
the
fax
Amended
SE
Wed
changed
2 01 PM
December
501
LEaston
at
co
VON TER
Assistant
On
multco us
2 03 PM
Portland
3377
doj state
Senior
katevts
katevts
today
Easton
Re
988
500
katevts
Sheila
Lea
PACER
they
Attorney
Suite
my call
To
that
County
2013
potter
m off
4688
Complaint
off
503
mailto
sheila
mailto
2013
947
Stegge
Assistant
On
503
s talk
Senior
katevts
04
m at
Amended
Let
STEGGE
December
m so pissed
time out
Kate
VON TER
Sheila
Re
Amended Complaint
you re on a call
Sent
To
H
VON TER STEGGE
2 05 48 PM
Sheila
Katharine
Ann
multco us
Easton
LEaston
including
fax
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
com
may contain
wrote
privileged
or confidential
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
purpose
and
is
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
any disclosure
any action
based
by law
or shred
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Attached
correct
Thank
Lea
is
the
the
first
Mr
complaint
Walruff
that
in all
we
filed
future
today
in the
Geiger v
Kitzhaber
We
will
pleadings
you
Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
LLP
1 SW
OR
Columbia
97258
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
amended
spelling of
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
VON TER STEGGE

H
2 36 19 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
updates draft answer
Attachments
Walruff s Answer
Sheila
Aff to
Complaint doc
Sheila
Here
is
a later draft of our answer to the
case that seemed
first
to concern to you
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
complaint
changed
the section about the State s position in the Li

FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY
Jenny M Madkour
OSB No 98298
County Attorney
501 S
Hawthorne
Telephone
503
503
Facsimile
Blvd
Oregon 97214
Portland
OSB No
von Ter Stegge
Katharine
mail
032300
Suite 500
3587
9883138
988
jenny
3377
m madkour
katevts
multco us
multco us

Eugene Division
DEANNE L GEIGER and JANINE M

WILLIAM GRIESAR
Civil
Governor
in
of Oregon
her official
official
capacity
JENNIFER
Oregon
capacity
Health Statistics
Multnomah
CV
01834
MC
in his official
capacity as
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
WOODWARD
as State Registrar
in
her
Center of
RANDY WALRUFF
6 13

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff
JOHN KITZHABER
No
in his official
and
capacity
as
County Assessor
Defendants
While the
the United
Page 1
rights
and
ability
States of America
this
of same sex couples to marry
is
of critical
importance
in
all
of
case arises under a factual and legal history unique to Oregon

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Multnomah
County
finds
in
itself
failing
licenses
to same sex couples
the unavoidable
position of being subject to suit for currently
to same sex couples
Multnomah
despite
County does not currently issue marriage
same sex couples because of the Oregon Supreme Court
2005
and Article 15
On March
couples on the advice
more than 3000
Multnomah
County Attorney
to same sex couples in 2004
Basic Rights Oregon
State of Oregon for declaratory
marriage as between a husband
and
licenses
court
in that
Multnomah
and the American
injunctive
level
Multnomah
but the defendants appealed
licenses
to
it
to same sex
County ultimately issued
County
Civil Liberties
together
Union
with nine
then sued the
arguing that certain state statutes describing
relief
and a wife violated Article
case would have allowed
to same sex couples
prohibits
Multnomah
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
Prevailing
clearly
licenses
338 Or 376
Li et al v State
County began issuing marriage
of the Multnomah
licenses
same sex couples
s ruling in
5a of the Oregon Constitution which
3 2004
history of issuing marriage
its
Multnomah
20 of the Oregon Constitution
or gender
State
County to continue to issue marriage
County and the other
the judgment
Li et al v
In
plaintiffs
prevailed
November 2004
at
the
trial
voters passed
Measure 36 amending the Oregon Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one
woman
2004
2004
That amendment
is
set
forth in Article 15
the Supreme Court of Oregon heard argument in Li et al
that
Multnomah
Multnomah
County lacked
to Plaintiffs
State
ultimately deciding
authority to issue the marriage licenses
County stop issuing marriage
In Answer
to same
licenses
In December
in
only then did
sex couples
Complaint Defendant Walruff admits
denies
and
alleges
as
follows
Page 2

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Oregon Constitution
states
marriage between one
The
It
is
man and one woman
shall
be
valid
remainder of Paragraph 1 states a legal conclusion
extent the remaining
knowledge
allegations
and
its
political
or legally recognized
for which
no response
subdivisions
Defendant
5a of the
that
only a
as a marriage
is
To
necessary
states
that
the
he lacks
partnerships
set
forth in
OR
S 106 300 106 340
the legal benefits of marriage that accrue
Defendant admits Oregon
afford same
to opposite
Defendant
states
that
who may
some
domestic
but not
legally
all
of
marry
scheme of allowing same sex couples to form domestic partnerships
of law contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs
To
sex couples
sex couples
but not marry treats same sex couples differently than opposite
allegations
admits that Oregon
he lacks knowledge
allegations
sex couples
The
remaining
Complaint require no response from
Defendant
Court to enjoin
Page 3
all
enforcement
of Article 15
5a of the Oregon Constitution and

Multnomah
501 S
other
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
all
request this
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
exclude gay and lesbian people from access to civil marriage
statutes that
identified
effect
themselves as same sex couples
Defendant admits
they seek a declaration
the
Due
United
that Plaintiffs
that
Article 15
though Defendant has no personal knowledge
bring this action
pursuant to 42
lesbian people the equal opportunity to marry under state law
of marriages between people of the same sex
U
is
and 2
it
denies
Defendant admits
to prevent Defendants from enforcing
Article 15
1983 and
Amendment
because
it
to that
denies
that
under
unconstitutional
States Constitution on the basis of the following theories
recognition
have
to the
gay and
equal state
that
Plaintiffs
seek
5a of the Oregon
Constitution
declaration
that
Oregon
statutes that
to gay and lesbian couples under the
Fourteenth
Amendment
to the United
preventing
refer
Due
husband
to
and wife
States Constitution
Defendant admits
also seek a
as applied
Clause of the
that Plaintiffs
seek a
equal access to marriage and the same legal recognition
opposite
sex couples
Page 4

Multnomah
501 S
seek access to
all
of the federal
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
are seeking
of their union that Oregon extends to
that Plaintiffs
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
and obligations
benefits
that
Article 15
prohibits marriage between same sex couples
suit
pursuant to 42
constitutional
rights
and
1983 to enforce what they believe are
liberties
by the United
secured
are seeking to recover
and for any other
action
relief
the Court
their
may
their
fundamental
States Constitution
attorney
fees
costs
bring this
Defendant also
and expenses for
this
order
this
Court has
questions and
jurisdiction
over
all
is
pursuant to 42
brought
admits this case raises important
1983
Defendant admits
1331 and 1343
Defendant admits
that
venue
is
proper
Defendants Rosenblum and Kitzhaber
further
place
that
that
events
pursuant to 28
maintain official
alleged to have occurred
in
US C
offices
the Complaint took
in
1391 b
Defendant admits
Marion County Oregon and
place
and continue to take
in this district
10
sufficient
allegations
set
11
Page 5
allegations
set

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
sufficient
Defendant
neither Robert
asserts that
William Griesar applied for a marriage license from Multnomah
Duemig
or
County to marry the other
12
Governor
John Kitzhaber
admits
all
allegations
concerning
admits
all
allegations
concerning
admits
all
allegations
concerning
admits
all
allegations
concerning
contained therein
13
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum contained therein
14
State Registrar
Jennifer
Woodward
contained therein
15
him contained therein
16
named
in
Defendants
some
as well as those under their supervision
part for enforcing
Article 15
information with which to admit or deny that particular
seek
employees
Page 6
all
requested relief against
and agents
direction
and the other Defendants are responsible for enforcing
Plaintiffs
admits that he and the other
all
Defendants
as well as individuals
Multnomah
allegation
statutes
he
for lack of
Defendant admits
as well as each Defendant
that
that
s officers
with each Defendant
or under
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Defendant denies
Oregon marriage
acting in cooperation

501 S
all
and control are responsible
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
each Defendant
supervision
direction
or control
17
Fairness Act created domestic partnerships in Oregon
Defendant admits
that
these laws provide
many
set
but not
admits that the Oregon Family
forth at
ORS
106 300 106 340
all
of
marriage to same sex partners to register a domestic partnership
18
findings
supporting
acknowledge
including
the adoption
that
of the Oregon Family Fairness Act at
has a strong
interest
in
promoting
the families of same sex couples and their children
should be provided
ability
his state
to achieve
their fullest
admits that Oregon
stable
and
legal
ORS
and
that
106 305 4
lasting
ll
protection
s legislative
families
Oregon
and
families
status
and the
potential
19
partnerships differ
from marriage
Individuals
in
Oregon
Oregon may marry
ORS
b
106 325 5
In contrast
in
individuals
Oregon
eligible
the earlier age of 17 with parental consent
until
to marry
pursuant to
106 010
Marriage
ORS
at
ORS
domestic
in that
are not eligible to register for a domestic partnership
they are 18 pursuant to

in
admits that Oregon
in
Oregon requires solemnization
106 010
before of
two
witnesses
pursuant
to
whereas domestic partnerships do not require solemnization to be
effective
Applicants
for a domestic partnership in Oregon must consent
Oregon courts upon dissolution of the partnership
Page 7

Multnomah
501 S
ORS
106 325
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
pursuant to
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Applicants
for a marriage license do not have to consent
Oregon courts upon divorce
ORS
106 041 4
statement
provides
that
is
The
laws of
the State of Oregon affirm your right to enter into marriage and at the same time
to live within the marriage free from violence and abuse
similar
provision
in
There
Oregon law with regard to the application
is
no same or
process for Oregon
20
allegations
set
sufficient
21
allegations
set
sufficient
22
Paragraph 22 of the Complaint
necessary
To
states
he lacks knowledge
that
states
a legal conclusion
allegations
for which
no responsive pleading
is
Defendant
23
sufficient
allegations
set
24
In response to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint Defendants admit that Plaintiffs
Nelson applied for a marriage

Page 8
license
on or about September 23 2013

Multnomah
501 S
Multnomah
County
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
in
Geiger and
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Oregon
Defendant admits
that
no
was
license
issued to the Plaintiffs
because
they are a same sex
couple
25
sufficient
allegations
set
26
allegations
set
actions for lack of information sufficient
that
Plaintiff
forth in Paragraph 26 regarding Defendants
future
Defendant admits
seek relief that requires Defendants to recognize same sex marriage as valid as a
matter of federal law within the State of Oregon
requiring Defendants to revise the official
such
that
Defendant admits
that Plaintiffs
state
same sex couples are able to marry
in
seek to relief
for license to marry and
Oregon
ANSWER TO CLAIM ONE DUE PROCESS

27
Defendant references and reincorporates
here
its
responses to Paragraphs 1 26
supra
of
the Complaint
28
the
legal
argument
asserts that this
Page 9
that
Article 15
States Constitution
depriving
Plaintiffs
violates
of fundamental

Multnomah
501 S
Due
Process
liberties
Defendant
5a of the Oregon
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
the
advance
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Due
States Constitution
29
the legal argument that Article 15
of the United
while allowing individuals
in
opposite
set
the
sex relationships
to do both
Due
Process Clause
with their loved ones
Defendant
asserts that
States Constitution
this
violates
who
the right to choose
Due
violates
States Constitution by denying gay and lesbian individuals
to marry and the right to enter into officially
advance
the
allegations
30
argument
Due
that
as enforced by Defendants
Article 15
States Constitution
are acting under color of state law while enforcing
Defendant
asserts that this
Article 15
ANSWER TO CLAIM TWO
violates
an
the
Defendants
Due
that
advance
5a of the Oregon
States Constitution
EQUAL PROTECTION
31
Defendant
Page 10
realleges
and reincorporates
by reference

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
its
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
30
supra
of the Complaint
32
legal
argument
that
Article 15
asserts that this
States Constitution
both on
violates
its
Constitution violates the Equal Protection
advance
Defendant
5a of the Oregon
States Constitution
33
Oregon Constitution
restricts
marriage eligibility
in
Oregon to opposite
admits that the Oregon Constitution prevents Deanna
marrying one another
Duehmig and
that
Oregon
Defendant admits
sex couples
Geiger and Janine
that
the Oregon
Nelson from
5a of the Oregon Constitution allows opposite
prohibiting same
sex couples from marrying and further
treatment
is
should determine whether
Article 15
Defendant
legally
Defendant admits
sex couples to marry while
that Plaintiffs
Defendant
5a of the
Constitution prevents Robert
William Griesar from legally marrying one another in Oregon
Article 15
this different
in
advance
asserts that this
violates
an argument
that
Court can and
States Constitution
34
legal
argument
that
Page 11
Article 15
violates
advance
States Constitution by discriminating against same sex couples on the basis

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
of gender
Defendant
asserts that this
the Oregon Constitution violates the Equal Protection
5a of
States Constitution
35
legal
argument
enforcement
violates
that
that
Defendant
asserts that
this
States Constitution
Defendants are acting under color of state law while enforcing
Constitution
advance
Article 15
5a of the Oregon
5a
States
Constitution
ANSWER TO ALLEGATIONS OF IRREPARABLE
INJURY
36
reference
its
35 supra
realleges
and reincorporates
by
of the Complaint
37
legal
argument
that
Article 15
and Equal Protection
States Constitution
can and should determine whether Article 15
the remaining
deny these
Page 12
allegations
set
violates
the
Defendant
Due
violates
States Constitution
Process Clause
asserts that this
advance
the
Court
Due
Defendant denies
to admit or
allegations

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
38
judicially
cognizable
the
violates
Due
controversy
Article 15
sufficient
as to whether
exists
allegations
set
admits that an actual and
States Constitution
In further Answer
AFFIRMATIVE
to Plaintiffs
DEFENSES
AS DEFENDANT WALRUFF S
Complaint and
Defendant
asserts
as follows
39
First Affirmative Defense

Failure to State a Claim
Plaintiffs
have
to state a claim upon which relief
failed
may be
granted
40
Second Affirmative Defense

Qualified Immunity
Defendant Walruff
established rights of which
is
qualifiedly
immune from
suit
because
a reasonable person would have
he violated
no
clearly
known
41
Third Affirmative Defense

Statute
Plaintiffs
of Limitations
claims are outside the applicable statute of limitations and are therefore expired
42
Fourth Affirmative Defense
Page 13

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
Ripeness
claims
Plaintiffs
may
not be justiceable for lack of ripeness
43
Fifth Affirmative Defense
Immunity
44
Defendant
is
to immunity from suit because
entitled
due to the current
state
of the law
he
cannot issue marriage licenses
to same sex couples without violating the Oregon Constitution and
ORS
a violation of law to issue marriage licenses
106 110
which makes
than as a husband
the Administration respectfully
the Court determines to be just and proper
relief
he not be ordered to pay any attorney
Because
Multnomah
direction
cause
Defendant Walruff also
licenses
to stop from the courts and the electorate
in fact
other
should not
requests that this Court grant any and
fees to Plaintiffs
County issued marriage
Defendant Walruff
through
to individuals
and a wife
WHEREFORE
that
it
now be
respectfully
all
requests
should they prevail in this action
to same sex couples until
receiving clear
as a matter of equity the County
ordered to pay fees because
by and
the County
is
not the
of any harm to Plaintiffs
Defendant Walruff
reserves the right to add further affirmative defenses
as discovery
commences
DATED
this
day of December
2013
Respectfully
JENNY
Page 14
M MADKOUR

Multnomah
501 S
COUNTY ATTORNEY
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
submitted
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
MULTNOMAH COUNTY OREGON
FOR
Jenny
Jenny
Madkour
Madkour
OSB No
98298
County Attorney
Katharine
von Ter Stegge
OSB No
032300
Page 15

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
From
Potter
To
Sent
12 4 2013
Subject
RE
Thanks
appreciate
From
Katharine
Sent
Wednesday
To
Potter
Subject
updates draft answer
it
VON TER
STEGGE
December
Sheila
updates
H
VON TER STEGGE
2 37 33 PM
Sheila
Katharine
04
mailto
2013
katevts
multco us
2 36 PM
H
draft
answer
Sheila
Here
is
State
Kate
a later draft
s position
von
Ter
our answer to
Li case
that
the
first
seemed to
complaint
concern
to
changed
you
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
of
in the
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
the
section
about
the
From
Potter
To
Sheila
jmiddleton
H
com
jjlslaw
Sent
12 10 2013 1 39 38
Subject
Hello
Hi
Jennifer
receptionist
it
s been
said that
My
a while
PM
tried to
you re working
call
today
some
time mid afternoon
day has filled
in with meetings
or after
about
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
Portland
Phone
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
give
outside
673
5000
4 30
the
you a call
office
since
this morning
today
started
Do
you have
this e mail
but
the
time for a quick

but
should have
From
Jennifer
To
Potter
Sent
12 10 2013 2 09 26
Subject
Re
Hi Sheila
Middleton
Sheila
H
PM
Hello
great to hear from you
m traveling
back from Medford but should be back
and able to
call
around 4 30
Talk soon
Jennifer
Sent from
On Dec
my iPhone
10
2013
at
Groupwise
through
1 40
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Hi
Jennifer
it
been a while
working outside the

meetings
oce
tried to give
today
Do
you a
you have time
this e mail but I should
since I started
call
this
morning
for a quick
call
but the
today
receptionist
My
day has
have some time mid afternoon or
after
said that you re

lled
in with
about 4 30
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
Avenue
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Middleton
Jennifer
Sent
12 10 2013 2 48 50
Subject
RE
Great
Call my cell
503
From
Jennifer
Middleton
Sent
Tuesday
December
To
Potter
Subject
Hi Sheila
to
Sheila
Re
call
PM
Hello
269
1737
mailto
10
and
you ll
JMiddleton
2013
be able
jjlslaw
to
reach
me no matter
where
am
com
2 09 PM
Hello
great
around
to
hear
4 30
from you
Talk
m traveling
back
from Medford
but
should be back
and
able
soon
Jennifer
Sent
On
from my iPhone
Dec
10
2013
through
at
Groupwise
1 40 PM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
sheila
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
it
a while
Hi
Jennifer
receptionist
s been
said that
My
tried to
you re working
call
today
some
time mid afternoon
day has filled
give
outside
the
in with meetings
or after
about
you a call
office
since
or us
or us
wrote
this morning
today
started
Do
but
you have
this e mail
the
time for a quick

but
should have
4 30
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
of
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
Trial Counsel
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
To
Potter
Sent
12 13 2013 2 23 18
Subject
Answer
Sheila
H
PM
Dear Sheila
A to
Exhibit
your answer did not come through
ECF
Lake
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Potter
To
Sent
12 13 2013 2 23 26
Subject
Automatic
I
If
am out
of
the
you have
by calling
assistant
Thank
office
an urgent
503
947
Samantha
Sheila
reply
today
matter
4700
If
Potter
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
December
for the
you have
Mo on by calling
you
Sheila
PM
Answer
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
13
will
be able
to
check
Division
please contact
an urgent
case
971
673
1880
related
Otherwise
e mail only occasionally
executive
matter
I
will
assistant
Joan
Green
please contact
my legal
respond
return
when
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Sent
12 13 2013 4 00 52
Subject
RE
PM
Answer
Thanks
James Perriguey
From
Lake
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Subject
December
Sheila
13
mailto
2013
lake
law
works
com
2 23 PM
Answer
Sheila
Dear
Exhibit A to
your answer did not
come
through
ECF
Lake
James H
Lake
Law
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
97205
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
12 13 2013 4 03 29
Subject
Re Answer
You
Sheila
H
PM
are welcome
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On Dec
13
2013
at
4 00
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Thanks
From
Lake
Sent
To
James Perriguey
Friday
Potter
Subject
mailto lake
law works
com
Sheila
Answer
Dear Sheila
A to
Exhibit
your answer did not come through
ECF
Lake
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
12 17 2013 11 16 28
Subject
Geiger v Kitzhaber
Sheila
H
AM
Sheila
BRO
plans to
vigorous
http
file
their
vanity suit this Friday
defense
www
law works com
Do
you
anticipate
the state will opp ose consolidation
as part of
its
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
12 17 2013 11 30 24
Subject
BRO
Notice
recipient
for
including
specific
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
including
avoiding
and
by Jennifer Middleton
party
contain
is
is strictly
we
not intended
any transaction
that they
will
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
We
Lea Ann
communication
any attachments
to another
told
and purpose
IRS regulations
recommending
ve been
that
it
may
any attachments
this
notified
Notice 2
AM
individual
you should delete
and are hereby
attachments
lawsuit
This communication
intended
Sheila
to
US
Code
or
or matter addressed
be
filing
their
federal tax advice
be used
complaint
and cannot be
ii
promoting marketing
herein
on
contained
used
Friday
in this
for the
or
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
12 17 2013 11 34 48
Subject
Re BRO
Sheila
AM
lawsuit
Thanks
She
left
till
the
me a message
yesterday
new
filed
Skepticism
suit got
about
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
advising
sent
their motives
that
maybe I
her a copy
of
wanted
what
we
to
postpone
d already
the
State
s answer
filed
growing
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
17
Dec
LEaston
Notice
2013
of
at
Justice
11 30 AM
dorsayindianlaw
This
Lea
Ann
com mailto
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
com
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
party
any U S
is
under
not
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
herein
We
Lea
ve
been
Ann
told
by Jennifer
Middleton
that
they
will
be filing
their complaint
or
addressed
on Friday
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 17 2013 11 38 14
Subject
Re
Hard
to
say without
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Sheila
AM
Geiger v Kitzhaber
seeing it
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
17
Dec
2013
of
at
Justice
11 16 AM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
wrote
Sheila
BRO plans
to
file
their vanity
consolidation
as part
Lake
Perriguey
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
suit this Friday
vigorous
Do
defense
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
its
LLC
Portland
T
of
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
PRINT
503
www
law
Justice
CONSERVE
RESOURCES
works
com
you anticipate
the
state
will
oppose
com
From
laura
To
Potter
Sent
12 17 2013 3 04 56
Subject
Electronic
Thank
the
States
our attention
requires
that
Information
refiling
prompt
have
Laura
Court
each
document
filed
is
corrective
necessary
to
This
filing
10 does
is
is
in
Case No
Case No
of
not
01834
reviewing
a case
feel
MC
Document
your filing
caption
and
Document
on your part
at
cover
free
to
contact
Title
this time
simply a reminder for future

Please
Geiger et al v
a Case Caption Cover Page
Case Number
needed
In
include
MC
6 13 cv 01834
6 13 cv
Oregon
must contain
Names
action
this matter
filings
Kitzhaber
No
it
page
LR
with
to
10 2
Counsel
review
you will
Thank
10
has come
including
Please
et al
LR
10 2
be contacted
you for your
me with any questions
you may
this notice
Any reply to
U S
Party
No 10
District
number
regarding
Brinn
electronic
document
No
PM
Document
that
attention
REMINDER
Filing
District
Court Title
for examples
if
Sheila
you for your recent
United
ord uscourts gov
brinn
this notice
District
Court
must be limited to
District
of
Oregon
the
541
subject
431
4101
matter
laura
referenced
brinn
ord uscourts
gov
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 17 2013 11 10 33
Subject
Geiger case
was
moving at
counsel
they
would
would
Lake
I
have
called
we
100
mph all
today
file
said no
been
to
to
to
s everything
so that
we
H
Deputy
Chief
complaint
know
whatever
to
that
a motion to
before
they
file
use the
word
we
have
failed
to
consolidate
so much
This
obviously
inferred it
know
keep
you posted
in the
loop
Counsel
of
didn
have
Potter
Department
You
agree
for her to
Trial Division
Oregon
com
only just realized
would
consolidate
Obviously
So that
Sheila
dorsayindianlaw
PM
update
you
BRO
their lawsuit
as seen
presumably
is
the
what
which
lawsuit
prompted
me today
unreasonable
re all
leaston
day and
ask if
with the
just agree
s question
Sheila
Justice
ll
with Jennifer
But
it
would
not
from my tone
on any other
conversations
with BRO counsel
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
leaston
Sent
12 17 2013 11 59 05
Subject
Re
Sheila
H
com
dorsayindianlaw
PM
Geiger case
Sheila
We
responded
requesting to see a copy of whatever
fashion
in like
We
and whether they can commit to an expedited timeline

which
plaintiff
and an implied
would be
to
interesting
adjudication
We
in
after I
will
notified
continue
Perhaps
we
www
http
On Dec
know
if
you
them about
17
my intent
the loop to hopefully
BRO
will
organization
in
plaintiffs
are
be a named
the ballot measure
getting the matter before
2013
11 10
at
at
100 mph
what prompted Lake
Obviously
her to have inferred
it
So
that s
or to otherwise
defer the
about the c
details
now
laims they are raising
suit
file
about
unknown
third
party interven ors are being realized after
all
smooth and expedited resolu tion
law works com
PM
Potter
Sheila
all
day and only
have so much as seen the lawsuit
everything
the loop
and who the
file
should agree this on a briefing schedule
would agree to a motion to consolidate
said no
to
ensure a continued
Sheila
u rgency
has ever been asked to delay any filing
guess their concerns
was moving
Their pecuniary interest as a fundraising
office
we
that
of this case
We
the intend
delaying the case appear to be at odds with our clients
have not yet heard back from Jennifer about timelines nor with
months
is
as soon as possible
the court
It
standing questions
raises
interest
it
have reason to believe
Potter
question
didn
from
my
know
ll
to
me
just
their
would
potter
sheila
doj state or us
wrote
realized that I failed to update you

lawsuit
we
just
which they would
counsel called today to ask
with the complaint
file
agree to consolidate
BRO
whatever they
file
You know
This
if
before
presumably
is
today
use the
word
obviously
with Jennifer
But
it
would not have been unreasonable for
tone
keep you posted on any other conversations with
BRO
counsel
so
that
we
re
all
in
Deputy
Trial
Chief Counsel
Division
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
leaston
Sent
12 18 2013 10 11 39
Subject
RE
think
a briefing
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
leaston
Subject
is
mailto
December
Sheila
17
a fine
lake
2013
law
idea
Is Kate
works
com
back
in town
11 59 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Re
AM
Geiger case
schedule
Perriguey
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
Geiger case
Sheila
We
responded
and
who
the
reason to
pecuniary
It
the
would
have
they
the
case
court
defer
not
the
yet heard
you for the

realized
Lake
we
503
503
http
see a copy
can
you office
of
they
guess their
about
would
Lake
them
concerns
I
have
to
hopefully
ensure
this on a briefing
detectors
0 0
detectors
0 0
503
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
PRINT
www
mph all
today
said no
to
to
in getting
the
matter
asked
to
delay
any filing
or to
my intent
unknown
to
about
file
third party
the
claims
suit
intervenors
are
smooth and
expedited
resolution
law
works
com
to
So that
s everything
so that
we
would
complaint
doj state
only just realized

You
agree
know
whatever
to
that
a motion to
before
they
file
Counsel
didn
use the
word
we
have
or us
failed
wrote
to
consolidate
so much
This
obviously
for her to
have
inferred it
know
keep
you posted
in the
Potter
Trial Division
consolidate
Obviously
re all
day and
update
you
BRO
their lawsuit
as seen
presumably
is
the
what
which
lawsuit
prompted
me today
unreasonable
Chief
file
have
RESOURCES
ask if
with the
just agree
to
We
Justice
CONSERVE
100
s question
Deputy
intend
schedule
data
works
file
Sheila
about
a continued
data
tel
been
been
about
x apple
2340
law
called
we
urgency
timelines nor with details
notified
x apple
334
would
the
timeline
which raises standing questions

Their
ballot measure
and an implied interest
has ever
97205
tel
moving at
counsel
is
this case
2013
at 11 10 PM
Potter Sheila H
On Dec 17
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter
was
it
an expedited
with our clients
Street
skype
lagojaime
OTLA Guardian of
whatever
Perriguey
1928
if
from Jennifer
loop
227
PLEASE DON
odds
of
commit to
all
the
Oregon
www
be at
months after
should agree
Law Works LLC

1906 SW Madison
Portland
to
know
back
update
after
continue
James H
to
they
as possible
to
now
being
Perhaps
whether
adjudication
are raising
will
requesting
and
appear
as soon
Thank
We
are
be interesting
otherwise
We
fashion
believe that BRO will be a named plaintiff

interest as a fundraising organization
the
in delaying
before
in like
plaintiffs
loop
ll
with Jennifer
But
it
would
not
from my tone
on any other
conversations
with BRO counsel
Oregon
Department
of
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
leaston
Sent
12 18 2013 10 58 01
Subject
Re
Yes
Bienvenidos
Do we
On Dec
18
think a
From
Sent
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE

com
dorsayindianlaw
AM
Geiger case
Katw
have some time today or tomorrow
www
http
a casa
Sheila
law works com
2013
brieng
Lake
To
Potter
Cc
leaston
schedule
is
Potter
ne
Sheila
idea
law works
mailto lake
Is
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Kate back in town
com
Sheila
Re
AM
10 11
Perriguey
Tuesday
Subject
at
H
com
dorsayindianlaw
Geiger case
Sheila
We
responded
in like
fashion

which
plaintiff
and an implied
the court
It
standing questions
in
would be
interesting
will
Perhaps
the intend
that
file
and who the
BRO
will
organization
u rgency
in
plaintiffs
are
be a named
the ballot measure
to
know
if
you
office
after I
notified
continue
we
or to otherwise
defer the
of this case
them about
We
is
months
it
as soon as possible
adjudication
We
raises
interest
We
my intent
to
about the c
now
suit
file
details
about
unknown
ensure a continued
third
all
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

On Dec
17
2013
CONSERVE RESOURCES
11 10
at
Potter
Sheila
was moving
we
100 mph
PM
at
day and only
what prompted Lake
all
said no
Obviously
it
So
that s
question
everything
didn
from
my
know
ll
to
me
just
their
would
potter
sheila
wrote
doj state or us

lawsuit
we
just
which they would
BRO
with the complaint
file
whatever they
You know
This
file
if
before
presumably
is
today
use the
word
obviously
with Jennifer
But
it
tone
BRO
counsel
so
that
we
re
all
in
the loop
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
leaston
Sent
12 18 2013 11 11 29
Subject
RE
I m jammed to
3 30
the
Lake
Sent
Wednesday
To
Potter
Do
we
have
SW
503
503
http
skype
OTLA
time after
Katw
or tomorrow
0 0
0 0
503
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
PRINT
www
CONSERVE
at
works
com
RESOURCES
10 11 AM
doj state
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
schedule
Perriguey
law
Justice
is
mailto
Sent
Tuesday
December
To
Potter Sheila H
17
lake
sheila
a fine
2013
dorsayindianlaw
Re
and
STEGGE
detectors
a briefing
leaston
VON TER
detectors
of
potter
Subject
10 00
com
data
tel
2013
Cc
9 30 and
com
data
2340
Lake
between
10 58 AM
x apple
334
On
From
works
a window
x apple
tel
think
have
97205
1928
PLEASE DON
law
2013
Street
227
18
lake
18
time today
Oregon
Guardian
Dec
Tomorrow
Katharine
www law works

lagojaime
sheila
AM
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
a casa
some
Lake James H
Law Works LLC
1906
mailto
dorsayindianlaw
Geiger case
Bienvenidos
Yes
today
December
Sheila
Cc
leaston
Subject
Re
com
dorsayindianlaw
Geiger case
gills
Perriguey
From
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
CC
law
potter
idea
Is Kate
works
com
doj state
back
or us
wrote
in town
11 59 PM
com mailto
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
Geiger case
Sheila
We
responded
and
who
reason
the
to
believe
pecuniary
It
the
would
have
they
the
defer
not
the
realized
will
Perhaps
Lake
Law
1906
continue
we
SW
to
can
odds
plaintiff
whatever
it
is
an expedited
which
the
raises
ballot
with our clients
if
you office
of
the
standing
measure
urgency
intend
timeline
and
to
We
file
have
questions
Their
an implied interest
in getting
the
matter
from Jennifer
months after
I
has ever
been
asked
to
delay
any filing
or to
this case
guess their
about
notified
them
concerns
about
about
my intent
unknown
to
about
file
third party
the
claims
suit
intervenors
all
loop
to
hopefully
ensure
this on a briefing
a continued
schedule
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
of
commit to
organization
be at
know
back
should agree
James H
Works
the
see a copy
as possible
update
after
to
to
they
be a named
adjudication
now
you for the
We
appear
yet heard
are raising
being
whether
BRO will
as soon
Thank
requesting
and
as a fundraising
case
court
are
be interesting
otherwise
We
fashion
that
interest
in delaying
before
in like
plaintiffs
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
smooth and
expedited
resolution
are
Portland
T
503
503
Oregon
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Dec
17
sheila
I
was
I
have
of
2013
we
to
to
s everything
so that
we
H
Chief
law
works
com
Justice
RESOURCES
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
day and
ask if
potter
doj state
only just realized

agree
You
consolidate
sheila
would
complaint
Obviously
re all
www
0 0
know
whatever
to
that
a motion to
before
they
we
file
or us
failed
wrote
to
consolidate
have
so much
This
update
you
BRO
their lawsuit
as seen
presumably
is
the
which
lawsuit
what
prompted
me today
So that
Deputy
2340
to
unreasonable
Sheila
20334
with the
just agree
s question
been
503
mph all
today
file
said no
1928
11 10 PM
100
detectors
20227
CONSERVE
at
data
503
doj state
called
would
x apple
com http
Civil
PRINT
moving at
would
Lake
works
potter
counsel
they
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
On
97205
227
didn
use the
word
obviously
for her to
have
inferred it
know
keep
you posted
in the
ll
with Jennifer
But
it
would
not
from my tone
on any other
conversations
with BRO counsel
loop
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
12 19 2013 6 34 19
Subject
Fwd
www
http
Date
To
Bill
Griesar
VON TER STEGGE
AM
good reason
to
move
things
along
Another
pdx edu
griesar
December 19
Cc Bob Duehmig
http
Katharine
message
Lake Perriguey
Subject
Another
law works com
Begin forwarded
From
Sheila
2013
lake
at
3 06 48
AM
PST
law works com
duehmigleo
good reason
gmail
to
com
move
things along
joemygod blogspot com 2013 12 married
after
60 years html disqus
thread
than mine
Nothing
great
is
ever achieved
without enthusiasm
to
me And
VON TER STEGGE

H
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 19 2013 8 45 28
Subject
Re
am
free after
Sheila
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
com
AM
Geiger case
3 30 today also
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Wed
500
Suite
Dec 18 2013
m jammed to
From
Lake
Sent
the
Perriguey
Potter
Cc
leaston
Subject
Yes
Sheila
Re
mailto
lake
Katharine
Tomorrow
law works
Geiger case
SW
a casa
Katw
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
Sheila
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
com
VON TER STEGGE

com
Law Works LLC
http
Potter
Lake James
1906
AM
today
gills
dorsayindianlaw
Bienvenidos
Do we
11 11
Wednesday
To
at
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
have a window between 9 30 and 10 00 and
time
501
after 3 30
PLEASE DON T PRINT
On Dec
18
think a
From
Sent
2013
brieng
Lake
To
Potter
Cc
leaston
schedule
is
Potter
ne
Sheila
idea
law works
mailto lake
Is
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Kate back in town
com
Sheila
Re
AM
10 11
Perriguey
Tuesday
Subject
at
CONSERVE RESOURCES
H
com
dorsayindianlaw
Geiger case
Sheila
We
responded
in like
fashion

which
plaintiff
and an implied
would be
adjudication
We
standing questions
in
interesting
will
Perhaps
after I
notified
continue
we
Lake James
to
know
if
them about
you
SW
Portland
that
office
my intent
file
and who the
BRO
will
organization
u rgency
to
in
plaintiffs
are
be a named
the ballot measure
or to otherwise
defer the
about
Perriguey
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
unknown
ensure a continued
details
about the c
now
suit
file
Law Works LLC

1906
the intend
of this case
We
is
months
it
as soon as possible
the court
It
raises
interest
We
third
all
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT
On Dec
17
2013
CONSERVE RESOURCES
11 10
at
Potter
Sheila
was moving
we
100 mph
PM
at
day and only
what prompted Lake
all
said no
Obviously
it
So
that s
question
everything
didn
from
my
know
ll
to
me
just
their
would
potter
sheila
wrote
doj state or us

lawsuit
we
just
which they would
with the complaint
file
BRO
whatever they
You know
This
file
if
before
presumably
is
today
use the
word
obviously
with Jennifer
But
it
tone
BRO
counsel
so
that
we
re
all
in
the loop
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Katharine
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 19 2013 9 51 16
Subject
RE
No ce
This
intended
communica on
a specic
for
should delete
Sheila
AM
including
may contain
any a achments
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
copying
Potter
Geiger case
communica on and
this
any disclosure
VON TER STEGGE
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
hereby no ed that
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
we
any a achments
including
inform you that any

is
on
party any transac
Can we schedule a
or
call
ma er addressed
pm
at
S federal tax advi
Code
avoiding
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
today
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
am
Sheila
Re
mailto katevts
multco
us
H
Lea Ann Easton
Perriguey
Subject
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Thursday
Geiger case
free after
3 30 today also
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
503 988 3377
From
Lake
the
Perriguey
County Attorney
97214
Potter
Cc
leaston
Subject
Sheila
Re
11 11
AM
today
gills
mailto
Katharine
dorsayindianlaw
lake
Potter
law works
a casa
Katw
Perriguey
com
VON TER STEGGE

com
Lake James
Sheila
Tomorrow
Geiger case
Bienvenidos
Do we
at
Wednesday
To
Yes
OR
fax
Dec 18 2013
m jammed to
Sent
Portland
multco us
On Wed
I
500
Suite
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
have a window between 9 30 and 10 00 and
time
501
after 3 30
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

On Dec
18
think a
From
To
Potter
Cc
leaston
schedule
is
Potter
ne
idea
law works
mailto lake
Sheila
Is
sheila
potter
wrote
doj state or us
Kate back in town
com
Sheila
Re
AM
10 11
Perriguey
Tuesday
Subject
at
brieng
Lake
Sent
2013
CONSERVE RESOURCES
H
com
dorsayindianlaw
Geiger case
Sheila
We
responded
in like
fashion

which
plaintiff
and an implied
would be
adjudication
We
standing questions
interest
in
interesting
know
to
notified
if
them about
continue
Perhaps
file
that
we
Lake James
SW
you
office
my intent
u rgency
to
in
are
be a named
the ballot measure
or to otherwise
details
about the c
about
unknown
ensure a continued
third
Street
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

17
2013
at
11 10
CONSERVE RESOURCES
PM
Potter
Sheila
Perriguey
Madison
www
defer the
now
On Dec
will
plaintiffs
suit
file
Portland
http
BRO
organization
Law Works LLC

1906
and who the
of this case
after I
will
the intend
months
We
We
is
as soon as possible
the court
It
raises
it
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
all
was moving
we
100 mph
at
day and only
what prompted Lake
all
said no
Obviously
it
So
that s
question
everything
didn
from
my
know
ll
to
me
just
their
would

lawsuit
we
just
which they would
BRO
with the complaint
file
whatever they
You know
This
file
if
before
presumably
is
today
use the
word
obviously
with Jennifer
But
it
tone
BRO
counsel
so
that
we
re
all
in
the loop
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 19 2013 9 52 30
Subject
RE
Works
for me
971
From
Lea
Easton
Sent
Thursday
To
Ann
Katharine
Cc
Lake
Subject
Notice
673
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
AM
Geiger case
5026
mailto
December
VON TER
LEaston
19
2013
STEGGE
dorsayindianlaw
com
9 51 AM
Potter
Sheila
Perriguey
RE
Geiger case
This
information
are not the
materials
communication
intended
intended
and
distribution
including
any attachments
of
any attachments
may contain
privileged
or confidential
for a specific
and is protected by law
If
recipient
you should delete this communication and or shred the
and
are hereby
this communication
or the
notified
taking
that
of
any disclosure
any action
based
copying
on it
is
you
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice 2
contained
cannot
ii
To comply with IRS regulations

we inform you that any U S
federal tax advice
including any attachments
is not intended to be used
and
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
of
avoiding
marketing
or recommending
a call
4 pm today
to
penalties
another
under
party
the
Internal
any transaction
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
addressed
herein
Can
we
Lea
Ann
From
schedule
Katharine
at
VON TER
STEGGE
Sent
Thursday
December
To
Potter Sheila H
Cc
Lake
Perriguey
Subject
I
Re
am free
Kate
von
after
Ter
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
Wed
3138
County
multco us
Easton
also
18
potter
I m jammed to
3 30
988
Lake
Sent
Wednesday
500
co
2013
11 11 AM
at
the
gills
Attorney
97214

Potter
or us mailto
today
mailto
December
OR
County
fax
3377
doj state
Multnomah
Portland
katevts
Perriguey
From
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
Dec
katevts
8 45 AM
Stegge
501
sheila
Ann
3 30 today
Assistant
On
mailto
2013
Geiger case
Senior
katevts
Lea
19
18
Tomorrow
lake
2013
law
Sheila
sheila
I
works
10 58 AM
potter
have
multco us
doj state
a window
com mailto
or us
between
lake
law
wrote
9 30 and
works
com
10 00
and
time after
To
Potter
Cc
leaston
Subject
we
Lake
Re
Law
have
Works
SW
Katharine
VON TER
a casa
some
time today
LLC
Street
Oregon
97205
227
1928
tel
503
20227
1928
503
334
2340
tel
503
20334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
Dec
18
works
of
Civil
2013
at
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
leaston
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
schedule
is
mailto
17
com
lake
sheila
a fine
2013
law
potter
idea
Is Kate
works
com
doj state
back
or us
wrote
in town
11 59 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Re
works
RESOURCES
10 11 AM
December
Sheila
law
Justice
doj state
Perriguey
From
www
CONSERVE
a briefing
Subject
com http
PRINT
potter
think
com
or tomorrow
503
sheila
dorsayindianlaw
Katw
On
leaston
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
OTLA
STEGGE
com mailto
Geiger case
James H
1906
dorsayindianlaw
Bienvenidos
Yes
Do
Sheila
com mailto
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
Geiger case
Sheila
We
responded
and
who
reason
the
to
believe
pecuniary
It
the
would
have
they
the
defer
not
the
realized
will
Perhaps
Lake
Law
we
Works
1906
SW
to
odds
if
from Jennifer
months after
I
the
loop
to
hopefully
the
standing
measure
urgency
intend
timeline
and
to
We
file
have
questions
Their
an implied interest
in getting
the
matter
been
asked
to
delay
any filing
or to

them
concerns
about
about
my intent
unknown
to
about
file
third party
the
claims
suit
intervenors
are
ensure
a continued
smooth and
expedited
resolution
schedule
Street
97205
tel
503
20227
1928
503
334
2340
tel
503
20334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
2013
potter
called
com http
Civil
PRINT
moving at
counsel
has ever
about
this on a briefing
was
raises
ballot
with our clients
notified
guess their
1928
is
LLC
Oregon
17
which
the
it
an expedited
all
227
Dec
whatever
this case
503
sheila
plaintiff
you office
of
On
of
commit to
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
OTLA
can
organization
be at
know
back
should agree
James H
see a copy
as possible
update
after
continue
to
to
they
be a named
adjudication
now
you for the
We
appear
yet heard
are raising
being
whether
BRO will
as soon
Thank
requesting
and
as a fundraising
case
court
are
be interesting
otherwise
We
fashion
that
interest
in delaying
before
in like
plaintiffs
at
today
CONSERVE
11 10 PM
works
com
RESOURCES
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
mph all
to
law
Justice
doj state
100
www
day and
ask if
sheila
H
potter
doj state
only just realized
would
agree
to
that
a motion to
or us
failed
wrote
to
consolidate
update
you
BRO
their lawsuit
which
they
would
would
Lake
I
have
we
file
with the
just agree
s question
said no
been
to
to
Obviously
So that
s everything
so that
we
re all
Deputy
Chief
You
know
whatever
before
they
we
file
have
so much
This
as seen
presumably
is
the
lawsuit
what
prompted
me today
unreasonable
Sheila
complaint
consolidate
didn
use the
word
obviously
for her to
have
inferred it
know
keep
you posted
in the
ll
with Jennifer
But
it
would
not
from my tone
on any other
conversations
with BRO counsel
loop
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
VON TER STEGGE

H
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
12 19 2013 10 03 59
Subject
Re
Works
On
for
me
Thursday
Works
From
Sent
for
Katharine
Lake
Potter
Sheila
H wrote
mailto
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
VON TER STEGGE
Potter
Sheila
Perriguey
Subject
No ce
2013
971 673 5026
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
AM
as well 503 998 3138
me
To
Lake Perriguey
Geiger case
December 19
Thursday
Sheila
RE Geiger case
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
any disclosure
this
including
communica on and
copying
may contain
any a achments
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
of any ac
hereby no ed that
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
avoiding
including
any a achments
inform you that any

is
party any transac
Can we schedule a
Lea Ann
we
on
or
call
at
ma er addressed
pm
today
S federal tax advi
Code
herein
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
From
Sent
Katharine
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
am
Sheila
Re
mailto katevts
H
Lea Ann Easton
Perriguey
Subject
VON TER STEGGE
Thursday
Geiger case
free after
3 30 today also
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
multco
us
From
Potter
To
H
VON TER STEGGE
Sheila
Katharine
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
12 19 2013 10 11 12
Subject
RE
Lake Perriguey
AM
Geiger case
Actually
I hate to
1 and 1 30 instead
throw a wrench
I know I m the
into things
but is
one who said I wasn
but
my noon
can
and
the
end
From
of
thing
the
cut
short
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
mailto
19
Cc
Perriguey
Lea
Ann
Re
On
Easton
Thursday
Works
From
7d
Sent
another
thing
that
Lake
503
December
for me
971
Lea
Easton
Ann
20 cvml
Thursday
To
Katharine
Cc
Lake
to
schedule
before
2013
katevts
multco us
10 04 AM
998
19
673
3138
2013
Potter
Sheila
H wrote
5026
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
20 LEaston dorsayindianlaw
December 19
2013 9 51 AM
VON TER
STEGGE
Potter
com javascript
7b
com
Sheila
Perriguey
Subject
RE
Geiger case
Notice
This communication
may contain
and is
information intended for a specific
are not
m trying
Geiger case
for me as well
Works
have
day
Sent
Thursday
December
To
Potter Sheila H
Subject
there any way we could do this between

t available in the middle of the day
the
materials
intended
and
distribution
recipient
any attachments
of
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
this communication
notified
taking
protected by law
If you
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
the
copying
on it
is
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
purpose
including
of
marketing
or recommending
Can
we
a call
4 pm today
Lea
Ann
at
From
Katharine
VON TER
Sent
Thursday
December
STEGGE
19
mailto
2013
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
ii
promoting
herein
schedule
we
to
another
katevts
8 45 AM
penalties
party
multco us
any U S
is
under
not
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
Subject
Re
am free
Kate
Sheila
von
after
Ter
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
Suite
503
also
988
Attorney
500
3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
County
multco us http
Ter
Easton
Stegge
501
von
Ann
3 30 today
Assistant
Kate
Lea
Geiger case
Senior
katevts
Perriguey
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 19 2013 10 12 20
Subject
RE
am not
available
Sheila
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
AM
Geiger case
me
at that
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
Cc
know
and
cut short
Potter
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
Re
for
Thursday
Sent
said
wasn
that I
is
m trying to
multco
mailto katevts
there
available
any way
in the
we
could
do
thisbetween 1
and 1 30
middle of the day butmy noon thing
Lake
schedule before the end of the day
us
Perriguey
Katharine
Cc
Lake
2013
Potter
Sheila
H wrote
971 673 5026
Lea Ann Easton
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
VON TER STEGGE
Potter
Sheila
Perriguey
Subject
RE Geiger case
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
any disclosure
this
including
any a achments
communica on and
copying
and
is
may contain
protected
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
of any ac
hereby no ed that
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
can
as well 503 998 3138
me
To
No ce
December 19
Thursday
No ce
who
Geiger case
me
for
one
Cc
Subject
m the
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
To
From
Perriguey
have another thing
Thursday
Works
Lake
hate to throw a wrench into things but
instead
Works
doj state or us
RE Geiger case
Actually
Sent
potter
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
From
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
On
Sheila
Thursday
we
inform you that any
S federal tax advi
ce contained
in this
communica on
including
any a achments
is
avoiding
party any transac
Can we schedule a
on
or
call
ma er addressed
at
pm
Code
or
ii
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ed
or recom
for
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
today
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
am
multco
us
Sheila
Re
mailto katevts
Lea Ann Easton
Perriguey
Subject
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Thursday
Geiger case
free after
3 30 today also
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 19 2013 10 19 03
Subject
RE
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
AM
Geiger case
Okay
Can plaintiffs
counsel propose a briefing
can confer by e mail as needed and make the call
From
Lea
Sent
Thursday
To
Ann
Potter
Easton
mailto
December
Sheila
Perriguey
RE
Geiger case
available
Lea
at
that
dorsayindianlaw
the
call
then
so that
we
com
10 12 AM
VON TER
STEGGE
time
Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
To
Sheila
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Actually
1 and
the
end
of
hate
I
I
can
Katharine
VON TER
December
Ann
Subject
Re
Works
Sheila
7d
December
971
Lea
Easton
Ann
into
m the
short
STEGGE
19
things
one
who
and
but
said I
have
is
wasn
another
there
t
any way
available
thing
that
we
could
in the
do this between
middle of
m trying
to
the
schedule
day
before
mailto
2013
katevts
multco us
10 04 AM
Perriguey
673
503
998
19
Thursday
Katharine
2013
mailto
Cc
Lake
December
VON TER
3138
Potter
Sheila
H wrote
5026
20 LEaston
To
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
19
2013
STEGGE
com javascript
7b
com
9 51 AM
Potter
Sheila
Perriguey
Subject
Notice
cut
Lake
for me
20 cvml
Sent
Geiger case
Thursday
From
or us
Easton
for me as well
Works
doj state
day
Thursday
Lea
a wrench
know
From
Potter
potter
10 11 AM
Perriguey
throw
Sent
Cc
sheila
2013
STEGGE
Lake
to
thing
the
To
19
Geiger case
my noon
mailto
VON TER
Easton
1 30 instead
but
December
Katharine
Cc
On
2013
Katharine
Cc
Lake
Subject
am not
LEaston
19
schedule before
pretty quick
RE
Geiger case
This
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
prohibited
any attachments
of
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
this communication
are hereby
or the
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
may contain
purpose
of
that
and
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
or shred
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
marketing
or recommending
a call
4 pm today
to
penalties
another
party
any U S
is
not
under
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Can
we
schedule
Lea
Ann
at
From
Katharine
VON TER
Sent
Thursday
December
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
Re
am free
Kate
von
after
Ter
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
County
Suite
503
988
multco us http
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
County
Suite
503
mailto
988
katevts
CONFIDENTIALITY
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
Ann
Easton
also
Attorney
500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
multco us
Attorney
500
Portland
keep
Attorney
97214
information
applicable
that
OR
County
fax
3377
co
Multnomah
multco us
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
multco us
Stegge
Senior
This
katevts
8 45 AM
Stegge
501
katevts
Lea
3 30 today
Assistant
Kate
mailto
2013
Geiger case
Senior
katevts
19
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
STEGGE
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
Katharine
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
12 19 2013 10 19 29
Subject
Re
have a board meeting
On
VON TER STEGGE
From
Thursday
am not
that
at that
Lake Perriguey
AM
Geiger case
might be done by 1 You can
December 19
available
Sheila
2013
call
me
on
my
cell
503 381 38 78
Lea Ann Easton wrote
me
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Cc
Potter
Sheila
know
and
cut short
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
Re
for
Thursday
From
one
who
said
wasn
that I
is
m trying to
mailto katevts
multco
us
H
Lake
Perriguey
as well 503 998 3138
December 19
me
2013
Potter
Sheila
H wrote
971 673 5026
Lea Ann Easton
mailto
LEaston
there
available
Geiger case
me
for
m the
VON TER STEGGE
Potter
Works
Perriguey
have another thing
Cc
On
Lake
To
Works
doj state or us
Thursday
Subject
potter
instead
Sent
sheila
RE Geiger case
Actually
From
mailto
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Thursday
dorsayindianlaw
com
any way
in the
we
could
do
thisbetween 1
and 1 30
can
Sent
Thursday
To
Katharine
Cc
Lake
Potter
Sheila
Perriguey
Subject
No ce
VON TER STEGGE
RE Geiger case
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
this
any disclosure
including
communica on and
copying
may contain
any a achments
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
of any ac
hereby no ed that
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
avoiding
including
we
any a achments
inform you that any

is
party any transac
Can we schedule a
on
or
call
at
ma er addressed
pm
Sent
Code
or
ii
today
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
mailto katevts
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
multco
us
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
herein
Thursday
S federal tax advi
Lea Ann
From
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 19 2013 10 22 47
Subject
RE
Lake and
From
Sent
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Lake
mailto sheila
Can plaintis
call
at
pm
doj state or us
counsel propose a
Lea Ann Easton
Potter
Cc
Lake
make
mailto
the
call
LEaston
brieng
schedule before the
call
then
so
that
we
can confer by
prey quick
dorsayindianlaw
com
Thursday
Sheila
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
Perriguey
Subject
am not
out before the
RE Geiger case
To
potter
it
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
e mail as needed and
Sent
AM
Geiger case
Perriguey
Subject
From
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Thursday
Okay
put a proposal together and send
will
Sheila
RE Geiger case
available
at that
me
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Cc
Potter
Sheila
know
and
cut short
Katharine
Potter
Lea Ann Easton
for
me
From
Sent
for
one
who
said
wasn
that I
is
m trying to
mailto katevts
multco
us
H
Lake
Perriguey
as well 503 998 3138
December 19
me
Katharine
Potter
Sheila
H wrote
971 673 5026
Lea Ann Easton

Thursday
2013
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
VON TER STEGGE
Potter
Sheila
there
available
Geiger case
Thursday
Works
To
Sheila
Re
m the
VON TER STEGGE
Cc
On
Perriguey
have another thing
To
Works
Lake
Thursday
Subject
doj state or us
instead
Sent
potter
RE Geiger case
Actually
From
mailto sheila
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Thursday
com
any way
in the
we
could
do
thisbetween 1
and 1 30
can
Cc
Lake
Perriguey
Subject
No ce
RE Geiger case
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
this
any disclosure
including
communica on and
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
copying
may contain
any a achments
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
of any ac
hereby no ed that
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
we
any a achments
inform you that any

is
avoiding
party any transac
Can we schedule a
on
or
call
ma er addressed
at
pm
Sent
Katharine
Code
or
ii
today
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
am
Sheila
Re
mailto katevts
H
Lea Ann Easton
Perriguey
Subject
VON TER STEGGE
Geiger case
free after
3 30 today also
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
multco
us
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
herein
Thursday
S federal tax advi
Lea Ann
From
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
12 19 2013 10 22 55
Subject
Re
This
Monday
about
Lake James
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
AM
Geiger case
and
getting a bit complicated
is
How
Sheila
don
want to complicate
things
or Tuesday
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On Dec
19
am not
2013
available
at
10 12
at that
AM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
could
do
me
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Cc
Potter
Sheila
know
and
cut short
Katharine
Potter
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
Re
for
me
for
one
who
said
wasn
that I
is
m trying to
mailto katevts
multco
us
H
Lake
Perriguey
as well 503 998 3138
December 19
me
2013
971 673 5026
Potter
Sheila
there
available
Geiger case
Thursday
Works
m the
VON TER STEGGE
Cc
On
Perriguey
have another thing
To
Works
Lake
Thursday
Subject
doj state or us
instead
Sent
potter
RE Geiger case
Actually
From
mailto sheila
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Thursday
H wrote
any way
in the
we
thisbetween 1
and 1 30
can
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
To
Katharine
Cc
Lake
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
VON TER STEGGE
Potter
Sheila
Perriguey
Subject
No ce
mailto
Thursday
RE Geiger case
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
this
any disclosure
including
communica on and
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
copying
may contain
any a achments
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
of any ac
hereby no ed that
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
we
any a achments
inform you that any

is
avoiding
party any transac
Can we schedule a
on
or
call
ma er addressed
at
pm
Sent
Katharine
Code
or
ii
today
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
am
Sheila
Re
mailto katevts
H
Lea Ann Easton
Perriguey
Subject
VON TER STEGGE
Geiger case
free after
3 30 today also
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
multco
us
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
herein
Thursday
S federal tax advi
Lea Ann
From
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
12 19 2013 10 27 26
Subject
CONFIRMING
Oh
We
okay
Lake James
are
Sheila
H
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
AM
PM
on for 4
all
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On Dec
19
2013
at
10 19
Can plaintis
Okay
Sent
Lea Ann Easton

Thursday
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
am not
make
mailto
the
call
LEaston
Sheila
sheila
brieng
potter
wrote
doj state or us
schedule before the
call
then
so
that
we
can confer by
prey quick
dorsayindianlaw
com
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
Potter
counsel propose a
e mail as needed and
From
AM
RE Geiger case
available
at that
me
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Thursday
Katharine
instead
cut short
Sent
potter
doj state or us
Lake
Perriguey
RE Geiger case
Actually
From
mailto sheila
VON TER STEGGE
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
I
I
know
and
Katharine
Thursday
one
who
said
have another thing
VON TER STEGGE
Potter
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
H
Lake
Perriguey
wasn
that I
there
available
m trying to
mailto katevts
To
Sheila
m the
is
multco
us
any way
in the
we
could
do
thisbetween 1
and 1 30
can
Subject
Works
On
Re
for
Geiger case
me
Thursday
Works
From
Sent
as well 503 998 3138
December 19
me
for
Lea Ann Easton
Katharine
Cc
Lake
Sheila
H wrote
mailto
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
VON TER STEGGE
Potter
Sheila
Perriguey
Subject
No ce
Potter
971 673 5026
Thursday
To
2013
RE Geiger case
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
this
any disclosure
including
communica on and
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
copying
may contain
any a achments
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
of any ac
hereby no ed that
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
we
any a achments
inform you that any

is
avoiding
party any transac
Can we schedule a
on
or
call
ma er addressed
at
pm
Sent
Katharine
Code
or
ii
today
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
Subject
am
VON TER STEGGE
Sheila
Perriguey
Re
Lea Ann Easton
Geiger case
free after
mailto katevts
3 30 today also
multco
us
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
herein
Thursday
S federal tax advi
Lea Ann
From
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Katharine
Sent
Subject
No ce
Sheila
Potter
VON TER STEGGE

12 19 2013 10 43 39 AM
Call In
for 4 pm today
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
this
any disclosure
including
communica on and
copying
may contain
any a achments
and
is
protected
conde
privileged or
by law
If
you are
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on

hereby no ed that
and are
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
party any transac
Unfortunately
Lea Ann
any a achments
inform you that any

is
on
or
someone
a conference
ma er addressed
else in
call
in
my oce
number
S federal tax advi
Code
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
is
for
avoiding
So here
we
going to be using our in
the
call
today
oce
712 432 1100
conference
Par cipan
cap
acity
Code
this
aernoon at 4
102390
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 19 2013 11 52 37
AM
Subject
Proposed
Attachments
Greigo v Oliver
Summary Judgment
SCT 12192013 pdf
Sheila
This communication
intended
for
Schedule
NM
and are hereby
Notice 2
To comply
communication
purpose
of
notified
recommending
Here
to another
Plaintiffs
Motion
filed
Plaintiffs
any transaction
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
by law
protected
not intended
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
a summary judgment motion
We
will
be
asking
Reponses due on
for
expedited
or before
hearing
on motion
the
1 30 2014
will
set
scheduling
conference
after
the County files
its
answer
we
anticipate
will
be on
or
12 23 2013
Obviously
Lake and
we
Reply due on or before 2 13 2014
Also the Court

before
for
on 1 9 2014
and County Defendants
State
Also
party
is
is strictly
it
and
contain
our proposed schedule
is
that
communication
any attachments
including
avoiding
this
IRS regulations
with
and purpose
individual
Motion
may
any attachments
including
specific
VON TER STEGGE
for
you should delete
recipient
attachments
Katharine
which
Notice
this
I
may be
today
ve attached
Lea Ann
affected
by whatever
they ve filed the complaint
the
New
BRO
files
Jennifer Middleton
BRO
s lead
counsel
has been
calling
today
Mexico Supreme Court decision
affirming gay marriage is
allowed
under state statutes
IN
Opinion
Filing
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
Number
Date December 19
No
Docket
2013
34,306
ROSE GRIEGO
MIRIAM RAND
KIMBERLY KIEL
and
ONA LARA PORTER

GREG GOMEZ
THERESE COUNCILOR and TANYA STRUBLE
MONICA LEAMING and CECELIA TAULBEE and
A D JOPLIN
and
and
JEN ROPER and ANGELIQUE
NEUMAN
Plaintiffs Real Parties in Interest
v
MAGGIE TOULOUSE OLIVER
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Bernalillo County and
GERALDINE SALAZAR
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Santa Fe County
Defendants Real
Parties in Interest
and
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel

NEW MEXICO ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
as the collective
New
and
organizational
Mexicos thirty three
33
representative
of
Counties and
M KEITH RIDDLE
in his official
DAVE
capacity as Clerk of
Catron County
KUNKO
in his official
ELISA
Chaves County
BRO
in her official
FREDA
capacity
as Clerk of Cibola County
L BACA
in her official
ROSALIE
as Clerk of Colfax County
L RILEY
in her official
ROSALIE
capacity
capacity
as Clerk of Curry County
A GONZALES
in her official
capacity
JOINER
as Clerk of
De Baca County
NEW MEXICO
DARLENE
ROSPRIM
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of
Eddy County
ROBERT ZAMARRIPA
in his official
PATRICK
in his official
Guadalupe County
L SHAW
BARBARA
in her official
MELISSA
Grant County
MARTINEZ
capacity
K DE
in her official
as Clerk of Harding County
LA GARZA
capacity
as Clerk of Hidalgo County
PAT SNIPES CHAPPELLE

in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Lea County
B BURROWS
RHONDA
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Lincoln County
SHARON STOVER
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Los Alamos County
ANDREA RODRIGUEZ
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of
Luna County
K BECENTI
HARRIETT
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of
McKinley County
as Clerk of
Mora County
JOANNE PADILLA
in her official
DENISE
capacity
Y GUERRA
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Otero
MAREZ
VERONICA OLGUIN
in her official
MOISES
capacity
County
as Clerk of
Quay County
A MORALES JR
in his official
capacity as Clerk of Rio Arriba
County
DONNA J CARPENTER
in her official
DEBBIE
as Clerk of Roosevelt
County
A HOLMES
in her official
MELANIE
capacity
as Clerk of San Juan County
Y RIVERA
in her official
EILEEN
capacity
capacity
as Clerk of San Miguel County
MORENO GARBAGNI
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Sandoval County
CONNIE GREER
in her official
REBECCA
capacity
as Clerk of Sierra County
VEGA
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Socorro County
ANNA MARTINEZ
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Taos County
LINDA JARAMILLO
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Torrance County
MARY LOU HARKINS

in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Union County and
PEGGY CARABAJAL
in her official
capacity
as Clerk of Valencia County
Intervenors Petitioners
and
LYNN J ELLINS
in his official
Doa Ana County
Real Party in Interest
and
HON ALAN
M MALOTT
Respondent
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Browne
Sutin Thayer
Peter
Lynn
E Mostoller
NM
Albuquerque
ACLU
PC
Kierst
of
New Mexico
Laura Louise Schauer
Ives
Alexandra Freedman Smith
NM
Albuquerque
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
O
D Esseks
Elizabeth
James
Gill
San Francisco
Law
Office of
N Lynn
Lynn
Perls
Perls
Albuquerque
Wray
CA
NM
Girard
PC
Jane Katherine Girard
Albuquerque
NM
3
National
Center for Lesbian
Shannon
P Minter
Christopher
F Stoll
CA
San Francisco
Westbrook
Sanders
Rights
PC
A Sanders
Maureen
NM
Albuquerque
for Plaintiffs
Office of the Bernalillo County Attorney
Randy
Peter
Autio County Attorney
S Auh
Deputy County Attorney
NM
Albuquerque
Office of the Santa Fe County Attorney
C Ross County Attorney

R Brown Assistant County Attorney
Stephen
Willie
Santa
Fe
NM
for Defendants
New
Mexico Association of Counties and

County Clerks
the Intervening
Steven Kopelman
Grace Philips
Santa
Fe
NM
The Ivey Soto Law Firm

Daniel
A Ivey Soto
NM
Albuquerque
for Intervenors
Gary
K King
Scott
Fuqua
Sean
Santa
Attorney General
Assistant
Attorney General
Cunniff Assistant Attorney General
Fe
NM
for Respondent
The
Raul
Carrillo
Law Firm P C
A Carrillo Jr
4
Karen Elaine Wootton
NM
Las Cruces
for
Amicus
Curiae
Doa Ana County
Clerk
Alliance Defending
Joseph
La Rue
AZ
Scottsdale
Evie
Jilek
NM
Albuquerque
for
Amicus
New
Curiae
Mexico Legislators
Block
Jenner
Paul
Freedom
A Campbell
James
LLP
Smith
Washington
DC
Rothstein Donatelli Hughes
Dahlstrom Schoenburg
Beinvenu
LLP
Sarah Eileen Bennett

Santa
Fe
NM
Caren Ilene Friedman

Santa
Fe
NM
for Amici Curiae
American Psychological
National
Association
Association
of Social
Mexico and New Mexico
New Mexico
Workers
Pediatric
Society
Office of the Santa Fe City Attorney
Eugene
Zachary
Santa
for
I Zamora
City Attorney
A Shandler
Fe
Assistant
City Attorney
NM
Amicus
Curiae
City of Santa Fe
University of
Max
New Mexico
School of
Law
Justin Minzner
George
L Bach
Psychological
National Association
Jr
Association
of Social Workers
New
NM
Albuquerque
for
Amicus
Curiae
New Mexico
Professors at University of
Gay
Lesbian Advocates
School of
Law
Defenders
Mary Bonauto
MA
Boston
Daniel
Santa
Yohalem
Fe
NM
for Amici Curiae

Equality
New Mexico
National
Organization for
Center Freedom
to
National
Organization for
Women PFLAG New
Marry
Prosperity
Works
and Gay Lawyers Association Anti Defamation

Rabbis Temple Beth Shalom of Santa
Santa
Fe Rev
Fe The
Arnold Rev Kathryn
Talitha
Community Church
Metropolitan
Law
Mexico Southwest Womens
New Mexico Human
the Land of Enchantment Media Literacy Project
in
New Mexico
Foundation
American Veterans for Equal Rights
Bataan Chapter Transgender Resource Center of

Organizers
Women
League
Pacific
Rights Alliance
New Mexico
Association
Lesbian
of
Reform
Unitarian Universalist Congregation
A Schlechter
of
Rising Sun Ministries
of Albuquerque
OPINION
CHVEZ
1
rights
Justice
All persons are born equally free and have certain natural inherent and inalienable
among which
are the rights of enjoying and defending
possessing and protecting
N M Const
art II
These inherent rights enjoyed by
arms freedom
government
searches
N M Const
art II
these rights
it
Constitution
is
and liberty of acquiring
property and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.
with twenty three other provisions

the right to bear
life
known
as the
all
New Mexico
New Mexicans
Bill
appear along
of Rights which
of speech freedom of the press freedom from unreasonable
and seizures due process and the equal protection
6 10 17 18 When
government
is
alleged to have
of the
laws See
threatened any of
the responsibility of the courts to interpret and apply the protections
The
United
States
Supreme Court explained
very purpose of a Bill
the vicissitudes
of political
of Rights
was
controversy
to
to
withdraw certain subjects from

place them beyond
the reach
of
majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied
by the courts
Ones
right to
life liberty and property to free speech a free
press freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental
of the
the courts responsibility
follows
The
include
rights
may
as
not be submitted
Bd of
Virginia State
vote they depend on the outcome of no elections
to
Educ
allege that the government
U S 624 638
Barnette 319
of Rights or has unconstitutionally discriminated against

of the allegation
If
1943
Thus when
litigants
has unconstitutionally interfered with a right protected by the Bill
proven
them courts must
courts must safeguard constitutional
decide the merits
and order an end
rights
to
the discriminatory treatment
marriages were once
Interracial
Supreme
States
Court declared
such
prohibited by laws in
laws
many
states
the United
until
and ordered
unconstitutional
an end
to
the
longterm
treatment
discriminatory
Loving
freedom to marry solely because of
allege
they
that
provisions of
a constitutional
our constitutional responsibility
Mexico
Constitution
decline
to recognize
marriages
couples without violating the
Although
against
we
the question
civil
them of the rights protections
this
samegender
U S 228 244
another.
and
New
question
constitutional
civil
we
to
must answer
between
O ne
whom
are in
and adoptive
responsibilities
1Every
man
or
or
legislation
whether the State of

couples
available
does
See
not
to
religious opinion or
Consistent
offends
New
the
religious denomination
legal
same gender
1 no religious
couples
woman
or political
mode
Mexico may
and therefore deprive
opposite gender married
11 Larson v
art II
cannot be officially
principles to analyze
couples from entering

rights protections
shall
organization
and
be
preferred over
the
into
and
statutory
to worship
right
God
responsibilities
will
its
policies
be required
according
of religious worship
No
mode
N M Const
be given
by law
of worship
art II
11
7
to
of
of religious
to
the
person shall ever be molested
or privilege on account
and
a purely secular
will have to change
no religious clergy
free
of and
Valente
of his or her
person shall be required
attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination
nor shall any preference
New
and cannot depend on religious
N M Const
her own conscience and no
or denied any civil
children
marriages and to
holding will not interfere with the religious freedom
same gender
dictates of his
to
of
all
Mexico Constitution
the accompanying
or clergy because
accommodate
is
the
under the Due Process and Equal
same gender
our analysis
bases for depriving
New Mexico laws Our
to
case
raised foster
whether
determine
must depend upon
marriage and securing
organizations
in this
right
estricting
arouses sincerely felt religious beliefs both in favor
marriages
1982
Instead
1967
of Rights to enter into civil
Bill
doctrine without violating the Constitution
456
12
violates the central meaning of the
racial classifications
Mexicos
legal rights protections and responsibilities of marriage
enjoy the concomitant

with
have
New
US
some
committed relationships
Protection
Virginia 388
samegender couples
of whom have
Equal Protection Clause. The
together
any religious denomination
or
to
solemnize a marriage in contravention
19B
1969
of his or her religious beliefs See
2004
through
New Mexico Human
from the
organizations
amended
as
Rights
NMSA
28
1978
exemption of religious
describing
Act
Summary
We
conclude
and
marriages when
same gender
precluding
New
none of
although
that
same gender
prohibit
Mexicos
whole
read as a
marriage
the
statutes specifically
statutes
have
Same gender
marriage
civil
who
similarly situated to opposite gender couples
same gender
Because
hereinafter
LGBT
are
who
couples
treatment
the
classification
New
Accordingly
constitutional
at
want
to
wish
enter
to
of all others are
do the same yet they are treated
whether lesbian gay bisexual or transgender
couples
group
discrete
discrimination and violence and which
such
of
effect
couples from marrying and benefitting from the rights protections
flow from a
into a civil marriage with another person of their choice and to the exclusion
differently
the
which
been
has
subjected
to
history
of
has inadequate political power to protect itself from
must
issue
Mexico
may
withstand
neither
intermediate
scrutiny
constitutionally deny
be
to
same gender
couples the right to marry nor deprive them of the rights protections and responsibilities of
marriage
laws
unless
marriage
prove
to
the proponents
an important government
13
138
The opponents
same gender
marriages
responsible
procreation
However
is
laws
Procreation
the purported
evidenced by the
who
the
partner
of the
aged
the infertile
from marrying
J specially
child
In addition
as
itself
It
maintaining
governmental
interest
concurring
is
inappropriate
governmental
interest
just
same race
of preventing
more than an argument
We
interest
the
of responsible
of marriage
and those
procreation
of
of
and
New Mexicos marriage

under New Mexico law as
who
New Mexico
interests
deinstitutionalization
of
choose not to have children

law recognizes
the right of
32A 5 11 1993 recognizing parties

Chatterjee v King 2012 NMSC 019
84 280
NMSA
1978
recognizing
Finally legislation must advance
the classification
interest
omitted
the right of a former
same gender
supported both the child and her former partner to have standing to seek custody
only opposite gender marriages
governmental
couples to raise children
Bosson
who
citation
assert that defining marriage to prohibit
the history of the development
are eligible to adopt children see also
P 3d 283
Mun Sch 2005 NMSC 028
marks and
and preventing
been a condition
never
fact that
are not precluded
same gender
has
same gender
substantially related
to the important overriding governmental
related
in
opponents of
legislation is
Carlsbad
marriage
and childrearing
childrearing is not reflected
by the
internal quotation
same gender
of
Breen
interest.
N M 331 120 P 3d 413
marriage
of the legislation
the
the discrimination caused
that
to
as
it
state interest
that is separate and apart from
define the governmental
was
marriages
inappropriate
in
Loving
to
interest
define
as maintaining
the governmental
Therefore
the
purported
the deinstitutionalization of marriage which is nothing
to maintain only opposite gender marriages cannot be an important
under the Constitution
conclude that the purpose of
New
Mexico marriage laws
is
to bring stability
and
order
to
the
legal
responsibilities
property
their
governmental
purposes
we
relationship
committed
of
as to one another their children
same gender
Prohibiting
interests
advanced
by the
marriages
parties
not
is
rights
their
substantially
same gender
opposing
responsibilities
sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection
We
Mexico Constitution
required
defining
and
related
marriage
to the
or to the
have identified Therefore barring individuals from marrying and depriving
them of the rights protections and
New
by
couples
they choose to raise children together and
if
to allow
samegender
hold
Clause under Article II
the State
that
couples
of civil marriage solely because of their
of
New
Mexico
marry and must extend
to
protections and responsibilities that derive from civil
Section 18 of the
constitutionally
is
them
to
the
rights
New Mexico law
marriage under
Procedural history
A marriage license
complies
fully
149
is
with all requirements
N M 66 243 P3d 1148
New Mexico
required under
of the law. Rivera
law as evidence
2010 NMCA 106
Rivera
Therefore denying marriage licenses
would be tantamount to denying them the
right to
to
enter into a civil
attendant legal rights protections and responsibilities
New Mexico
same gender
marriages and filing
enter into civil
40 1 10
1978
voluntarily
1905
as amended
others continued
8
to
were
Plaintiffs
to decline
initiated
same
to
County Clerks Clerks
who
are qualified
NMSA
the couples are married
2013
its
The Doa Ana County Clerk
samegender
21 2013
couples on August
while others did not do so until ordered by a court yet
issue marriage licenses to
same gender
couples
number
as a result of the Clerks actions
filed their
samesex
deny
through
began issuing marriage licenses to
Several other Clerks did the
of lawsuits
the licenses once
19
couples
marriage with all of
are delegated the responsibilities of issuing marriage licenses to couples

to
a marriage
that
couples
complaint in
the freedom
Griego
to
seeking a declaration
that
it
is
unlawful
marry on the basis of sex or sexual orientation
because such denial deprives them of fundamental rights and
liberties.
They also sought
a permanent injunction requiring in part that Defendants implement and enforce all aspects
of the
states
marriage law
without
discriminating
on the basis of sex or sexual
orientation and that Defendants treat Plaintiffs once married

married couples under the Constitution and laws of
New
equally with all other
Mexico.
thirtythree
9
On
Mexico
August
29 2013
following
an
initial
declaratory
judgment
Association of Counties as the organizational representative
Clerks
under Rule
from the
filed
an unopposed motion to intervene based on a
1 024 B 2 NMRA
state
stating
their
10
that
the
New
for the States
common
of law
question
Supreme Court. The Clerks asserted that they have a need for an immediate
of appellate
questions at the highest
review.
On September
the
Griego
future intentions to seek immediate review
ruling that is applicable statewide and that resolves the constitutional

level
in
2013
the district
court issued its final declaratory
refusal to issue marriage licenses
to
otherwise
qualified
judgment
samegender
stating
couples
Article II
violated
to
accepted
On
Mexico Constitution
September
a verified petition for writ of superintending
2013
control
the
Prior
the writ in this case this Court had denied two separate verified petitions for
accepting
writs of
New
Section 18 of the
we
Clerks filed and
mandamus
without prejudice to the parties to pursue litigation of issues in the lower
nonprecedential
M
nonprecedential
M
D
court with a right to request expedited
N
order N
Sup Ct Aug 15 2013
order
in
22 2013
samegender
2013 295
Oliver
courts have
other district
to
Griego
Sup Ct Aug 15 2013
See State ex rel
the district courts
August
27
00094
alternative
Griego
Oliver
No
No
34,216
34,227
Both cases were subsequently
decided
0101 CV 2013 02182 Aug
No
Sept 3
Salazar
D 202 CV 2013 02757
New Mexico
writ of
2013 affecting
2013
writ of
See State ex rel Stark
mandamus
issued in the
In addition a
Martinez
No
number of
D 820 CV
Eighth Judicial District
Taos County State ex rel Newton
mandamus
v Stover No
Court on
D 132 CV 2013
issued in the First Judicial District Court on August
Los Alamos County Katz
2013 affecting
Salazar
issued writs or orders requiring Clerks to issue marriage licenses
couples in
alternative
Hanna
See Hanna
review.
Zamarripa
D 608 CV2013 00235
No
29
final
order and permanent
injunction issued in the Sixth Judicial District Court on September
2013 affecting
County
Grant
the outcome of the petition for writ
Other cases are awaiting
of superintending
Our
of superintending
exercise
11
control that is presently
VI
Article
to
superintending
determine
the
superintending
when
same.
12
78
120
at
we
had created uncertainty
exercised
as
we
it
is
deemed
to
be
in
Id
The
issue
and
exercise
our
to
n order
power
provide
of
even
Kennedy 1995 NMSC

citations
a prompt and
omitted
question
that
resolution to
final
they are also in a position of uncertainty
samegender
2These cases include Gering
marks and
to decide a double jeopardy

to
hear
Clerks urge us to exercise our power of superintending
did in Schwartz because
their responsibilities to
t he supreme
also have power
the public interest to settle the
internal quotation
our discretion
in the courts
troubling question.
control
that
shall
jurisdiction
its
we
the earliest moment. State ex rel Schwartz
N M 619 904 P 2d 1044
In Schwartz
appropriate
it
it
the course of ordinary litigation in inferior courts
there is a remedy by appeal where
069
Constitution provides
control over all inferior courts
When we deem
control to control
question involved
this
New Mexico
writs necessary or proper for the complete exercise of
issue
and
control is appropriate in this case
Section 3 of the
court shall have
before this Court
regarding
marriage licenses
Garbagni
No
D 1329 CV 2013 01715
Sandoval
samegender
County and
three cases
already issued in
some
brought
by
state
legislators to
challenge
couples even without a court order directing them
CV2013 2061
Miguel
County
the validity of licenses
cases where individual Clerks have issued marriage licenses to
Doa Ana County Sharer

Sharer v Carabajal
No
Rivera
to
No
do
so
D 1314 CV2013 01058

10
Sharer
Ellins
D 412 CV2013 00367

Valencia
No
San
County
13
The
record before us reflects the uncertainty
was
petition
filed eight
New
couples while twenty four were not
Court
this
14
We
requested briefing to consider
2 the varying
review
the issuance of licenses to
performing a duty under
same gender
may
not be recognized
lingering uncertainty
couples created chaos statewide
couples
for the purpose of receiving
federal
New Mexico
of law regarding
same gender
whether
agreed to hear this case
we
5 there
and
is
New Mexico
ruled upon by district courts and pending throughout
we
and
The
courts and grant the writ of superintending
who
real parties in interest
15
The
New
four
Judicial
real parties
accountants
and engineers
volunteer
councils
together
units
at
interior
and work for
they have
Rose Griego
relationship for
non profit
regarding
the
common
New Mexico Once

to
ensure that the
We
affirm the
control
Plaintiffs are six
Oliver
real estate
who
No
same gender
were the
plaintiffs
couples from
in
the Second
D 202 CV2013 02757
Plaintiffs
brokers teachers small business owners
Many
are active
organizations and serve
in
community service they
on municipal boards and
through
in
both legal and ceremonial
city
those family
means
the date they filed their second amended complaint Plaintiffs
Kim had
and Kimberly Kiel
Miriam Rand
for aging parents and tried to have
cared
been
Miriam and Ona Lara
twenty five years
in
a committed relationship for eight
Porter
Aaron Joplin
Plaintiffs
Ona
AD
had been
and Greg
in
a committed
Gomez Greg
a committed relationship for seven years Plaintiffs Therese Councilor
and Tanya Struble Tanya had been
own
due to the
benefits
amicus curiae briefs
marry and
laboratories
raised children
Rose
Plaintiffs
had been
how
whose New Mexico
They have formed stable family units involving mutual protection and support and
As of August 16 2013
years
to
designers
our national
formally recognized
16
wish
Court case of Griego
District
include
who
Clerks are
seek to marry
in interest in this case
Mexico counties
thereafter
a high volume of cases
marriage is lawful in
invited and accepted
3 the
important issues before us were adequately briefed and argued to this Court
district
the parties
and disagreement about
samegender
the law in
about
in the lower courts
law and they express uncertainty
state
positions of the courts and the Clerks regarding
4 there are currently more than 1,400
proceed
question
the date of oral argument before
merits of this case because
the
Courts order to pursue litigation
this
requested expedited
marriages
By October 23 2013
samegender
to
over 1,466 marriage licenses had been issued
complied with
to
described by the Clerks At the time this
Mexico counties were issuing marriage licenses
in
Therese
a committed relationship for twenty three years and
Monica and
twentyone
a business together Plaintiffs Monica Leaming
had been in a committed relationship for

Angelique Neuman
Angelique
had been
fifteen
in
years and
Cecilia Taulbee
Plaintiffs
Jen Roper
Cecilia
Jen
and
a committed relationship for the past
years
17
Several
together
of the
Plaintiff
couples
raise
or have
raised children and grandchildren
Miriam and Ona raised three children together during the course of
11
their
twenty
five year relationship
Their youngest daughter
combined households
legally changed
of both of the mothers in her life
who was
only three
Their middle daughter Cherif is physically disabled and
can no longer care for her fourteen year old daughter
who
adopted Cherifs daughter and Miriam plans
second
adoption
finalized Miriam does
is
Cecilias three children
Monica
consider
to
adulthood
is
now
Until the
make
important
legal authority to
she is helping to raise
refer to
an adult
Monica and
who
Rose as
left
home
school
calls
them both
Dad
The
inability
United
live
Army
States
and Greg have no
long term foster
Families Department
following
his graduation
the hospital refused to provide
from high
several of the Plaintiff couples
On
Kim with any
one occasion
information about
ofkin
Roses condition or treatment
that
it
was Kim who
parents and both womens

Miriam was not
eligible
when Miriams mother died Also due
were forced
cancer
to
in late
partially
pretend
to
2012 and
be sisters
functions
Jen was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain
Plaintiffs
filed their
read as a whole
We
determine
not legally
can
New Mexico
begin our legal discussion
whether the
be interpreted
statutes
to
authorize
avoid
20
are irrelevant
an interpretation of a
Our
several
hours
marry Angelique could

twenty one
each
day with her
not collect
spousal
year relationship
marriage statutes prohibit
same gender
marriages
New Mexico marriage statutes to

same gender marriages If the statutes
with an analysis of
authorize or prohibit
same gender
protections and responsibilities that

raised by Plaintiffs
complaint Jen had been placed in an
and Angelique was spending
Jen and Angelique could
benefits as a result of Jens disability despite their
19
next
and medical decision making Miriam and Ona
doctors told her she had eighteen months to live After surgery to
At the time
assisted living facility
When
to restrictive
not
remove the tumor Jen suffered a stroke which impaired some of her physical and
cognitive
Because
visitation
However
when Onas mother died and Ona was
for bereavement leave
and familyonly limitations on
fact
Miriam and Ona cared for each others aging
mothers passed away within one year of each other
for bereavement leave
eligible
Roses other family members arrived despite the
until
took Rose to the hospital
and
marry
have endured significant familial and medical hardships together
when Rose was hospitalized
child
with their mothers while the eldest
legally marry has adversely impacted
to
Cecilia raised
Jen and Angelique adopted three
All three brothers support their mothers efforts to legally
18
who
The two youngest boys
enlisting in the
after
AD
step mother
their
a relationship with their former
preschool age brothers from the custody of the Children Youth

have raised them together
has
parent adoption
during their fifteen year relationship all three children
biological children but they maintain
who
automatic
Ona
has cerebral palsy
parent and she considers them to be her children Similarly
as another
Kims college aged children
they raised
to initiate
not have
whom
for her granddaughter
decisions
when Miriam and Ona
her surname to Porter Rand to reflect the importance
come with
marriages
See Chatterjee
statute that
would
including
all
of
the
raise
2012 NMSC 019
18
We
seek to
constitutional concerns.
principal goal in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the Legislatures
12
rights
being married the constitutional questions
intent
Baker
Hedstrom 2013 NMSC 043
our States basic marriage statutes in
40 1 1 1862 63
which
contract for which

essential.
Each
provides
11
that
P 3d
309
1862 Our
1047
The Legislature
analysis begins with
arriage is contemplated
couple desiring to marry pursuant to the laws of
file
the license for recording
in
the county
may not
40 1 10 A
marriage
See State
statutory subsection
to
we
be prohibited
may
in
2004 NMSC 001
shall
a ceremony conducted
are gender neutral and suggest that
not be considered in a
New Mexico
parties in Section
must read these phrases
Rivera
Section
by the law as a
issuing the license.
Although the references to the phrase contracting

couple in Section
enacted
first
1978
civil
parties capable in law of contracting
the consent of the contracting
obtain a license from a county clerk of this state and following

state
NMSA
40 1 1
in this
40 1 10
Section
is
first
and the term
samegender
marriages
context with other statutes relating to
13
vacuum
134
N M 768
82
P 3d
939
but must be considered in reference
the statute as a whole and in reference to statutes dealing with the same general subject
matter.
21
marks and
internal quotation
As early
as
1905
citation
t o insure a uniform
the Legislature also developed forms
of records of all marriages hereafter contracted

future reference
omitted
N M Laws
1905
and the
ch 65
better
preservation
The forms included an application
gender
specific designations
of statutory construction
we
first
New
Commn 2013 NMSC 042
26
Mexico Attorney
309
P 3d 89
Gen v New
In the context
bride are gender specific terms See The American Heritage
and bride as
1961
In
specifically call
1953 amended
a bride
a man who
a woman
who
is
about
for a Male Applicant
1961
The
Section
man
about
to
and a
40 1 7 1876
and
the marriage
Under the rules
to
that
Regulation
of marriage groom and
Dictionary 230
5th
ed 2011
be married or has recently been married
the application form
also required
form and the
for a marriage license
NMSA
1978
the signatures of a
fact that
2013
provisions contained
that
to
40 1 18
groom and
the marriage forms have
the Legislature intended a civil
The consanguinity
as amended through
Pub
be married or has recently been married
marriage certificate
woman
Id
Mexico
and a Female Applicant.
of the application
remained the same since 1961 suggest

between a
is
the Legislature amended
The amendment
application
for
turn to the plain meaning of the words at issue often using
the dictionary for guidance.
defining bridegroom as
The
However
required signatures from both the groom and the bride.
certificate
22
Id
marriage license a marriage license and a marriage certificate

marriage license did not contain any
system
of said record for
marriage to be
in
NMSA
1978
void marriages between a male and
certain female relatives and between a female and certain male relatives also suggest that the
Legislature did not intend to permit
in
NMSA
1978 Chapter 40
samegender
Article 2
1901
couples to
marry
as amended through
Finally the provisions
1973
that
define the rights
of married persons generally refer to husband and wife 3 the provisions in
Chapter
40
3See
Article 3
eg
1907
as amended
through
40 2 1 8
13
1997
NMSA
1978
address the property rights of
NMSA
husband and wife 4 and the provisions in
2011
amended through
See Garcia
term
as that
gender
as
Thus we conclude
Dept
reflects
of
Pub
of
en banc
and a female Baker
Law
mean
not
On
couples
married
1735
and
ed 2009
9th
woman
N E 2d 941 953
the Legislature intended
that
the contrary
Mass 2003
couples be licensed
State 744
that
to
defined
as a
marriages
Vt 1999
state
applicants
marry. Li
woman
conclude
Because
marriage is a civil
A2d 864 869
is
we
samegender
intent to prohibit
licenses specify bride, which
810
Dictionary
the
to
Husband
a mix of gender neutral and gender specific terminology
law specifies
state
as
Either party,
the parties
refer to
is husband and wife.
that
male male or femalefemale marriage
samesex
not intend that
2005
that
legislative
Health 798
the consanguinity
1901
Article
N M 776 82 P 3d 947
134
can logically only
married man and wife as
same gender
marriage between
18
See Blacks
relations statutes does
the domestic
scheme
terms
proceeding
relations
specific
defining husband
23
40 47
used in Section
underlying domestic
wife are
2004 NMCA 004
Jeantette
is
1978 Chapter 40
address the dissolution of marriage between husband and wife.
the statutory
that
See Goodridge
law
in
authorize
to
silent as to
is
the Legislature did
State 110
P 3d
91
96
Or
contract entered into by a male
law specifies
state
and groom, which
that
marriage
defined
is
as a
man
24
Even
we were to conclude that the gender neutral language in Sections 40 1 1 and
40 1 10 authorizes samegender marriages we could not avoid the constitutional challenge
if
raised by Plaintiffs
marry but
marriage.
into civil
their
Plaintiffs
seek vindication not only of
entitlement to all the essential protections
Interpreting our statutes to authorize
marriage
will grant
them the
rights
and
committed
constitutional right to
their
responsibilities
samegender
and privileges available
attendant on
couples to enter
to opposite gender
married couples in approximately one thousand statutes and federal regulations that refer to
a persons
marital status thereby
United States
striking
199
down
avoiding
US
Windsor
1996
110 Stat 2419
codified
government
at
must extend federal marital benefits
couples lawfully married in states that recognize
4See
eg
5See
eg
on
that
basis
See
S Ct 2675 2694 2695 96 2013

Defense of Marriage Act DOMA Pub L No 104
1 U S C 7 1977 28 U S C 1738C 1997 and
133
Section 3 of the federal
holding that the federal
a constitutional challenge
same gender
to
same gender
marriages6
civil
However
40 3 1 12
40 4 3
samegender
6Since the filing
agencies
have engaged
couples
same gender
Equal
in
New
v Dow
US
Windsor
133
S Ct 2675
a pattern and practice of limiting the extension of benefits
who have a
valid marriage certificate
couples in a civil
what prompted
State
of United States
union or domestic partnership
Jersey to declare its civil
A3d
declining
2013
14
union
WL
to
extend the benefits
to
This pattern and practice is
legislation
6153269
to
federal
at
unconstitutional
Garden
N J Super L
2013
the phrasing
of
many
New
of
Mexicos
statutes
state based
limits the concomitant
protections and responsibilities of marriage to opposite gender married couples
4 supra
we
Were we
would
whether
samegender
depriving
Clause of
Article
II Section 18 of the
New
the
constitutionality
samegender
of denying
depriving them of the essential protections
Plaintiffs constitutional
right to
25
marry
to a civil
Protection
challenge
a fundamental
is
Plaintiffs
right
married
contend
that
marriage
and
samegender
couples
responsibilities
the
marriages
Therefore
and a claim
Mexicos laws denying
same gender
that the
Section
New
18 of the
the Equal
Mexico Constitution because
discriminates against them on the basis of either their sex or their sexual orientation
No
person shall be
denied equal protection
the right to marry is a fundamental

right
also violates the
marriage laws violate
26
We
rights
issue
committed
New Mexico
right
and the
laws.
Plaintiffs
also contend that
with the exercise of
interference
Plaintiffs
do not claim
it
See id
that
New
this
Mexicos
interpret
same gender
have a constitutional
States
Constitution
will address the equal protection
We
of the
same
couples the
enjoyed by opposite gender couples violates
as that
will
right
New
Clause of Article II
we
to marry and
attendant on marriage.
based on equal protection
is
of
the Equal
marriage
right
nn 3
couples
Mexico Constitution
despite the lack of an express legislative prohibition against

analyze
same gender
the marriage statutes as permitting
decide
to
state based marital rights protections and responsibilities violates
concomitant
Protection
to interpret
have
still
rights
See
challenge
couples have
before
challenge
discussing
the fundamental
a constitutional right to be married and
to the rights protections and responsibilities afforded
right
to raise two questions
do
2 do they
to
married
opposite gender couples
27
We
apply the equal protection
in Breen to answer these two
questions This approach generally requires us to
constitutional
legislation
approach announced
creates
a class
2005 NMSC 028
10
If
of similarlysituated
it
does we
individuals
first
and
determine whether the
treats
them differently
then determine the level of scrutiny that applies to the
challenged legislation and conclude the analysis by applying the appropriate level of scrutiny
to
determine
whether the
Same gender
affirmed by
2013
couples
Garden
Governor
legislative classification is
who
State
constitutional
seek to marry are situated similarly to opposite gender
Equal
A3d
v Dow
2013
WL
5687193
at
NJ
Christie withdrew his appeal of the Superior Court decision thus leaving
making
the courts decision
samegender
marriage legal in
See Kate Zernike and Marc Santora As Gays
Wed
in
New
New
Jersey the controlling
law
Jersey ChristieEnds Court Fight
christiewithdraws
NY
Times
21 2013 http www nytimescom 2013 10 22 nyregion

ofsame sex marriageruling in new jerseyhtml
Oct
appeal
15
who
couples
28
seek to marry
contend
Plaintiffs
they also are in committed and loving relationships
many opposite gender
these Plaintiffs are raising families similar to

to
be married They
assert
that
opposite gender couples who want
29
The opponents
of
to
samegender
who
couples
Some
of
also seek
of their status as married couples will provide
recognition
them with a stable framework within which

to
who
they are similarly situated to opposite gender couples
that
seek to be married because
to
care for each other and raise families similar
marry and
families
raise their
marriage concede
that
same gender
couples
may
be
similarly situated to opposite gender couples with respect to their love and commitment to
one another but they contend
that
contend
overriding purpose for recognizing
is
that
the governments
these similarities are beside the point
The opponents
and regulating marriage
responsible procreation and child rearing, which they describe as the ability of a married
couple to naturally produce children

the natural
contend
30
capacity
that
To
In addition because
create children
to
same gender
determine whether
to
samegender
contention
the
that
to their ability
overriding
Fertility
New
purpose
to conceive
samegender
Mexico Right to Choose NARAL
NARAL
Johnson
internal quotation marks and
Mexicos marriage
of Chapter
40
is
statutes
does not support the
responsible
and
procreation
grounds
which
at
the
ever been specific
LV
time
only
2773
marrying
adultery
New Mexico
and
nor
ever been
has infertility
cruel
or inhuman
Title
ch
II
and
treatment
998
In
1915
ground for divorce 1915 Compiled Laws of

nor unwillingness to have
that
procreation
is
the overriding
laws samegender and opposite gender
children
responsibilities
Counsel for
children
has
grounds for divorce
are treated differently
producing
included
but neither infertility
Even assuming arguendo

marriage
sexual relationships
of marriage
was added as another specified
New Mexico ch
through
Beginning in 1884 a divorce could only be granted on specific
1884 Compiled Laws of
abandonment.
impotency
children
marriage also cannot cite to any such language
has never been a condition
ground for divorce
yet they
seek to marry
of the marriage statutes dating back to 1862 has not revealed any
or intention
the opponents of
Mexico
New
who
we must look beyond the
either implicit or explicit that requires applicants for a marriage license to attest
language
specific
1978 Chapter 40
N M 788 975 P 2d 841
the history of
Our review
childrearing.
opponents
the
of the parties dispute the fact that children benefit from stable family
However
relationships
32
126
omitted None
citation
31
40
couples do not have
relationships
and opposite gender couples
NMSA
the purpose of the law.
1999 NMSC 005
samegender
sexual
their
couples cannot be similarly situated to opposite gender couples
are similarly situated with respect to

classification
through
or
they
who
still
Opposite gender couples
simply do not intend

benefit
In addition
couples are
just
from
to
who
New
similarly situated
are incapable
of naturally
have children are not prohibited from
concomitant
marital
as opposite gender couples
16
purpose of the
still
rights
may
protections
adopt or have
and
children
who adopt
couples
or have
marrying and they and
families are deprived
laws even
marriage
Procreation
their
of the
is
are prohibited from marrying and they and their
their
a family by adoption
property and
2013
amended through
is
a ceremony
a civil
by
marriage laws
their
children
ordained
law as a child born
NMSA
to
to
and order
to
The
the legal
to
1978 Chapter 40
laws
our marriage
The
have children This purpose
civil
contract
parents
who
NMSA
are married to each other.
h usband and wife contract

Section 40 2 1
writing Section
is
as
Civil marriage is purely
who
during
are not ordained
same
rights pursuant to the
40 1 16
Section
generally describes the rights of married persons
and support.
1978 Chapter 40
1859
must be solemnized
officials
toward each other obligations

Other provisions in Article 2
general terms marriage settlements or separation

in
Article 1
children the general marriage laws provide that
1978 Chapter 40 Article 2
such agreements be
35
Mexico marriage laws
are not married to each other has the
begins by specifying that the
in
under our
available
or assisted reproduction
bring stability
clergy or certain other designated
of mutual respect fidelity

describe
to
NMSA
40 1 1
Section
With respect
who
child born to parents
It
is
they choose
if
generally describes
contract
40 1 2
clergy Section
34
New
not the overriding purpose of the
self evident from the structure of our laws
it
responsibilities
of committed couples by defining their rights and responsibilities as to one
relationships
secular
and
rights protections
they choose to have
if
are not prohibited from
assisted reproduction
utilizing
families benefit from state granted marital rights protections
New Mexico
purpose of the
another
children
Same gender couples
and responsibilities
33
may samegender couples However opposite gender
assisted reproduction so too
utilizing
requiring that any
contracts
40 2 4
3 defines the property
Article
rights
of a married couple
Genderneutral
by enacting the Community Property
and establishes equality in property ownership
NMSA
40 3 6
1978
language is used
NMSA
17 1973 as amended through
to
throughout
1978 Chapter 40
the
Section
for the orderly dissolution of a marriage
See
40 4 1 to 20 Finally the Family Preservation Act NMSA

2005 also supports our conclusion that the overriding purpose of
stability
emphasize the
and
the
family as an
concern
considered
as a
units whether
We
Act
is
responsibilities
legislative
36
See
40 15 1
1978
Section
whether
40 15 2
couple
These
procreates
statutes
Instead
evince an overriding concern with protecting
that
The purpose of
of parents and the state in the healthy development
they are procreative
conclude
to confirm the states policy of support for the family and to
institution.
with
whole
to
our marriage laws is the
of marriage for the benefit of married couples and their families
the Family Preservation
Act
17
Property
Act
40 3 7
40 3 6
to
Community
Article 4 provides
1997
couples
who
relationships and want to be married under the laws of
opposite gender couples
who
to
be married Other courts
that
do not indicate
these
statutes
when
the stability of family
or not
same gender
to
of children
are
in
loving
New Mexico
and
committed
are similarly situated
likewise are in loving and committed relationships and want
have considered
17
this
issue have also found that
same gender
who
Cases 183
P 3d
Cal
384
want
2008
marry are similarly situated
to
In In re Marriage
Supreme Court concluded
the California
that
the two
classes are similarly situated because
Both groups
formal
at
issue consist of pairs of individuals
legally
and
binding
relationship that affords the
rights
long term
family
and privileges and imposes the same
Under
bring into play equal protection
to
enter into a
to
circumstances
these
there
but that these two categories of individuals are sufficiently
question
whether
same
wish
recognized
officially
obligations
who
similar
principles that require a court to determine
between
distinctions
no
is
two
the
groups
unequal
the
justify
treatment.
Id
at
435
n 54
quoting People
Hofsheier 129
constitutional amendment as stated in Strauss

Hollingsworth
37
In Kerrigan
opponents
US
Perry
same sex
couples otherwise
couples
meet
and raising
their
same
share the
who
Cal 2009 and
2013
A 2d
Conn 2008
407
the
samegender couples are not similarly

same gender couples seek to marry someone of
Id
unlike opposite gender couples
heterosexual persons
115
superseded by
marriages argued that
at
423 24 The
wish
to
all
of the eligibility
Supreme
Id
at
same
for marriage
requirements
424
In addition
in a committed and loving relationship as
interest
marry and
Connecticut
to marry someone of the
of age and consanguinity
including the public safety requirements
same gender
48
2659
Court rejected this argument noting that other than wanting
sex same gender
P 3d
Horton 207
2006
Cal
37
S Ct 2652
133
situated to opposite gender couples because

the
29
Commissioner of Public Health 957
same gender
of
P 3d
they share the
children in a loving and supportive
same
interest
environment.
in
having a family
Id
samegender
38
The Iowa Supreme Court advanced
a similar rationale
in recognizing
that
couples are similarly situated to opposite gender couples
Therefore
marriage
laws we
respect
of their status
relational
rights
heterosexual
couples
Society
the power to
Varnum
it
Brien 763
analysis applies to
and
purposes
an
and
couples
institutional
of
Iowas
responsibilities
benefits
for
health care and
that
framework
N W 2d
same gender
862
is
end of life
provided
883
couples in
Iowa
just
example
official
as
it
does
for
from providing
raise their
children and
decisions for loved
ones
just
for opposite sex couples
2009
We
New Mexico who
18
Moreover
basis for defining their
a stable framework within which to
make
does when
subject
heterosexual
provides
fundamental
same sex couples
the
are in committed and loving relationships
Plaintiffs
raising families just like
recognition
as
to
find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to
persons
heterosexual
many
with
are persuaded that the
want
to
same
get married Having
concluded
that
we
situated
samegender
who
want
to
marry are similarly
the level of scrutiny to apply
next consider
Intermediate scrutiny applies because the legislation at issue affects a sensitive class
39
Three potential levels of scrutiny are available under an equal protection

the statutes treat a suspect
standard of review
First
if
strict
scrutiny applies and the burden is on the party supporting the statutes to prove that
the legislation furthers
a sensitive
12 Second
class such as persons with a mental disability an
standard of review applies which
intermediate
Breen 2005 NMSC 028
a compelling state interest
the statutes treat differently
if
class
differently the least deferential
challenge
requires the party supporting the statutes to
prove that the legislation is substantially related to an important governmental
28
Third
suspect
if
the statutes in question are social or economic
or sensitive
differently the most deferential
class
applies and the burden is on the party challenging

is
40
Plaintiffs
their
their
which
gender
creates
11
Id
be applied
to their
equal protection
samegender couples rights based on

43 to support their argument that New
marriages denies
the Equal Rights
to satisfy
treat
standard of review rational basis
purpose
scrutiny should
strict
NARAL 1999 NMSC 005
cite
legislation
justification
Mexico
that
because prohibiting
sex They
Mexico
contend
do not
legislation that
Id
the statutes to prove that the legislation
not rationally related to a legitimate governmental
challenge
interest
based
must have
classifications
Amendment
to
Article II
a compelling
Section 18 of the
New
Constitution
samegender
41
sex
We
do not agree
Plaintiffs
that
have conflated
sex and sexual orientation
unequal treatment of men and
classification
persons
42
at
issue is
more
the challenged
classification
legislation
does
properly
based on
between
distinction
not result in the
contrary persons of either gender are treated

gender The
analyzed
as differential
treatment
based
upon a
sexual orientation
The New Mexico Human
had
already
been
orientation is defined
who
NMHRA NMSA
Act
was amended
in
2003
from discriminatory treatment

a protected
in the
whether actual or perceived.

individuals
Rights
2007
as amended through
class of persons protected

Sex
in
women On the
The
in that they are each permitted to marryonly a person of the opposite
equally
1953
the marriage statutes at issue create
NMHRA
Section
2001
class
NM
to
28 1 1
1978
to
15
add sexual orientation as a
2003
N M Laws
ch 383
Laws ch 347
Sexual
as heterosexuality homosexuality or bisexuality
28 1 2
In this case
we
are concerned
with those
want to marrysomeone of the same gender whether they are homosexual
bisexual or transgender
Other
orientation as well as gender
New Mexico
See
NMSA
legislation
1978
offers protection
29 21 2 2009
based on sexual
prohibiting profiling by
law enforcement officers on the basis of sexual orientation as well as other characteristics
NMSA
1978
31 18B 2
the Hate Crimes
Act
NMSA
2007
1978
including sexual orientation as a protected status under
31 18B 1 to
19
5 2003 as amended
2007
The need
add sexual orientation
to
protected
F3d 33 35
232
to
these
2d Cir 2000
would have been
statutes
encompassed an individuals
class
Congresss
unnecessary
of congressional
interpret
sex to include sexual orientation.
intent in the face
of consistent
Many courts that have considered the issue have applied the
same gender marriage cases based upon sexual orientation
P3d
at
436 40
the distinct class is
orientation Hernandez
Harris 908
same gender
A 2d
cases
in a case involving
basis of
discrimination based
on
Classification
gender
sexual
same
challenge on
see also Lewis
equal protection
36 41 47
the
challenge
Our analysis
orientation
scrutinizing
of
in a
sex
discrimination
historical
we
For these reasons
marriage the equal protection
challenge
conclude
should not be
but must be analyzed as a case involving
sex discrimination
requires intermediate
the basis of sexual orientation
scrutiny
analysis
See In re
that
even
if
the classification
at
scrutiny
issue is based on an individuals
sexual orientation such a classification should be treated as a suspect classification

strict
to
on a persons sexual orientation
contend
Plaintiffs
refusing
properly viewed as being based on sexual
evaluating
gender based
same gender
analyzed as a case involving
not
NE2d 1 10 11 N Y 2006
women NARAL 1999 NMSC 005
against
44
on the
been
has
more
N J 2006
196 212 16
marriage case
discrimination
that
Robles 855
Runyon
equal protection
declining to analyze the equal protection
the basis of sex because
decisions
judicial
43
Marriage Cases 183
refusal to expand the reach of Title VII is strong
evidence
in
sex as a
if
See Simonton
sexual orientation
suspect
class
is
group
a discrete
saddled with such
requiring
disabilities
or
subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment or relegated to such a position

of political
powerlessness as to
Richardson
process.
political
N M 688 763 P 2d 1153

1973
36 125
28
NM
721
965
classifications
gender
based statutory
45
In
by
presumed
to
held
that
law
shall
29
was
that
this
See
we
chose
27 In addition we have treated

NARAL 1999 NMSC 005 27
for the legislation
Id
to
Constitution
be deprived of life
liberty
denied equal protection
apply a greater level of scrutiny
gender
legislation which involved
addition
based
Article II
classifications
36 43 A
key rationale for applying
Amendment
which added the language
to
or property without due process of
20
art II
Section
of rights under
NARAL 1999 NMSC 005
law
18
Article II
e quality
Section 18 had only the language
N M Const
would be
would have the burden of establishing
of the sex of any person. See
of the laws.
are considered
federal courts have analyzed gender discrimination
scrutiny but
not be denied on account
Before
as suspect
the 1973 addition of the Equal Rights
New Mexico
107
US 1
1998 NMSC 031
origin and alienage
national
27
Rodriguez 411
City of Albuquerque
be unconstitutional and the government
scrutiny
18 of the
1988 NMSC 084
Richardson
NARAL we acknowledged
Race
Inc 1988 NMSC 084
Indep Sch Dist
San Antonio
classifications
a compelling justification
strict
Carnegie Library Rest
P 2d 305
applying intermediate
37 We
Id
quoting
from the majoritarian
extraordinary protection
overruled on other grounds by Trujillo
suspect
cases
command
no
person shall
nor shall any person be
1972 We
concluded
that
to
honor the
Protection
was
we
New Mexico
of
were obligated
to expand the guarantees of our Equal
apply a level of scrutiny greater than the one that
to
being applied by federal courts particularly because the United States Constitution does
have
not
of the citizens
intent
Clause
counterpart
1999 NMSC 005
N E 2d 426 428
New
to
29 37
Mexicos
Equal
Op of the Justices
quoting
Mass 1977 To
the
Another key rationale for applying
strict
to
judgment
reflect
common
the
law view
and discretion
32 34 and
women
that
1914 NMSC 021
Amendment
with
causing
1999 NMSC 005

Amendment
is
consequences
judicial
47
35
27
Id
the
inquiry concerning
the
based
state
issue
we
that
opponents of
class
because
same gender
that
same gender
34
State
of
idiots and
Chaves de
of these
that
NARAL
laws
the Equal
remedy for the
legal
that
credited the Equal Rights
concluded
whether
is
be
therefore
invidious
a searching
requires
36
Id
classifications.
a classification
Rights
based
on an
based on gender race national origin
treated
as a suspect
samegender
marriage argue that
was
mentally
lunatics
quoting
We
employ gender based
must decide
should
it
incapable
and therefore
individuals sexual orientation parallels classifications
and alienage and whether
were
many
of
provides
discrimination,
laws
we
repeal
analysis
this
prohibition
gender
In this case
amendment and
Based on
specific
of
N M 646 140 P 1123
18
other early laws
and were classed with children
aliens insofar as their political rights were concerned.
Armijo
the intention of
including restrictions on their rights
NARAL 1999 NMSC 005
vote hold public office
exercising
than the strict
scrutiny to gender based classifications
women
the history of invidious discrimination against
continued
less
it.
the people in adopting
to
371
Representatives
of
amendment and
scrutiny test would negate the purpose of the equal rights
46
House
which requires any
use a standard
NARAL
Amendment
Rights
to
The
classification
couples are not even a sensitive
couples possess political power that vastly exceeds
small
their
samegender
samegender
percentage
of the population, and therefore if they do not qualify as a sensitive class they
cannot be considered
a suspect class These opponents illustrate
couples by pointing to achievements
that
they have
the political power of
attained
with respect to
marriages7
The Democratic
Party has included
platform See Platform Standing
Comm
T his
legislative facts
or tending
Moving
NMSC 083
55
dissenting in part
Albuquerque
trial
NM
110
facts.
583 227
or
NM
Trujillo
621
798
73
citing
P 2d
available
appellate
may take
it
Quynh Truong
P 3d
2012
18
by resorting to whatever materials
147
Democratic Natl Convention
Forward
Court
or any court
to establish those
26 25 28
of
America
redefining marriage in its official party
Comm 2012
may
at
its
Allstate Ins
Trujillo
571
have
judicial
disposal
at
notice
establishing
Co 2010 NMSC 009
City of Albuquerque
Montgomery
concurring
36
Trujillo
21
II
1990
in
overruled in later appeal on other grounds by Trujillo
1998 NMSC 031
of
part
City
http www
The
democrats org democratic national platform
President and his administration support
Obama
Earnest President
samesex
Same Sex
Supports
marriage
See Josh
Marriage The White House
sexmarriage
o g
http www
1 0
2 0 1 2
3 1
gov blog 2012 05 10 obama
whitehouse
http assets
orgdnc
dstatic
same
supports
platform 2012 National
Platform pdf
During
the
years
five
last
jurisdictions
New
in
legislatures
Vermont New
Hampshire
seven
York
United
the
Columbia Minnesota Delaware and Rhode Island

have voted
marriage See Defining Marriage
Laws
Defense
of
States
of
District
to
Marriage Acts and
redefine
Same Sex
on
sexmarriage
Marriage
National Conference of State Legislatures
26 2013 http www
current
July
ncsl org issues research human services same
overview aspx
year
Last
the
citizens
Washington
decided
of
redefine
to
people See Richard Socarides
States
Maine
three
through
marriage
Obama
Maryland
a direct
vote
and
of the
and Gay Marriage One Year Later
h e
N e w
Y o r k e
M ay
6
2 0 1 3
http newyorker com online blogs newsdesk 2013 05 obamaand
gaymarriage
r
one year later html
48
Focusing
opponents
of
community
on the
powerlessness
political
samegender
marriage because
are a discrete group
who
prong
whether
a reasonable
is
samegender
have been subjected
to
strategy
couples
for the
LGBT
the
a history of purposeful unequal
antisodomy
treatment is not fairly debatable
Until
1975
consensual sexual intimacy between persons
of the same gender was prohibited and actively
laws
See
NMSA
Laws 1975 ch 109

constitutional
305
551
P 2d 1352
unconstitutional
42
supra
individuals
legislation
reversing
based upon
crimes legislation
we
State
Vol
in
has recently
their
sexual
enacted
Mexico courts under
2d Repl
Pamp repealed
New Mexico were upheld despite

1976 NMSC 030 9 89 N
Elliott
the Court of Appeals
29 21 2 and
31 18B 2
insofar as
it
held the
sodomy
statute
previously noted in paragraph
legislation to prohibit discrimination against
orientation
2003
NM
Laws ch 383
enacted
officers from profiling individuals based on their
added sexual orientation as a protected class under hate
None
of this legislation would have been required
if
the
community was not a discrete group which has experienced a history of purposeful
unequal treatment and
49
laws See
prohibit law enforcement
sexual orientation
LGBT
sodomy
Convictions for
New
However perhaps more importantly as we
New Mexico
to
40A 9 61 1963
1953
challenges to these
prosecuted in
acts
of violence
Refocusing on the contention

recognize
that
they
have
had
that
the
some
LGBT
recent
22
community
political
is
not politically
success
regarding
powerless
legislation
them However we also conclude
prohibiting discrimination against
LGBT
for the
deep
already
application
rooted
prejudice
intermediate
because
disabilities
The
society
scrutiny
to
advocacy
LGBT
Valelly
LGBT
hostility
numbers
at
http www
they have
although
and expressed
Investigation
show
need of
LGBTs
of
types
all
political
activity
See Windsor
sexual
times more
subtle
United States 699
50
discrimination
U S 677 685 86
Richardson 411
Although the
LGBT
Cases provide
Colorado enacted
in the
community has had
two good
ordinances
that
US
at
623 24
Const
of violence
See
Annu Rev
Polit
crimes committed
constant over the
crimes
Fed
Bureau
of
reasonable to expect that the
F3d 169 184 85

but they
still
arena.
political
2d Cir 2012
their
face pervasive although

quoting
Frontiero
political
Romer
examples
success they have also seen
Evans 517
Romer
In
US
620
numerous
1996
their
and In re
municipalities
in
in
and health and welfare services
In response to the enactment of such ordinances the voters of Colorado
of state or local government
CR S A
acts
prohibited discrimination against gays and lesbians
amended the Colorado Constitution

level
are
1996 through 2012 available
It is
housing employment education public accommodations

517
LGBTs
1973
gains repealed by popular referendums
Marriage
to be seriously
orientation private also hinders or suppresses their
position has improved markedly in recent decades,

at
mental
despite their gains
relatively
of hate
Statistics
gov about us cjis ucr ucr publications

their
with
of them keep their sexual
the rates of hate
remained
our
28 29
risen slightly in the past few years both in absolute
as a percentage
to keep
persons
and ongoing
that
Uniform Crime Reports Hate Crime

fbi
affecting
power because many
statistics
warrants
in determining whether
discrimination
against individuals based on sexual orientation have

past two decades
which
2005 NMSC 028
Politics and American Political Development
15 31332 2012 FBI
Sci 2012
overcome the
to
community continues
difficulty
advocacy
effective
need
remains seriously hindered
of the
represented in positions of political
Richard
adversely
legislation
advocacy
their political
orientation private to avoid
that
continuing
See Breen
case
in this
hindered as evidenced by the uncontroverted
under
their
against their integration into society
scrutiny
political
by
seriously hindered
is
of intermediate
applying
in
community
art
to
the three branches of government
preclude
from protecting
30b Romer
517
at
any
gays and lesbians against discrimination
US
at
624
The
constitutional
amendment
adopted by the voters reads
No
Protected Status Based on
Homosexual Lesbian
Neither the State of Colorado

nor
any of
districts
policy
shall
enact
whereby
practices
entitle
agencies
its
or enforce
shall
its
subdivisions
lesbian
branches or departments
municipalities
or
school
any statute regulation ordinance

or
constitute
bisexual
orientation
or otherwise
or
conduct
be the basis of or
any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status
quota preferences
Id
adopt
homosexual
or relationships
through any of
political
or Bisexual Orientation
internal quotation
protected
marks
status
omitted
or claim of discrimination
In
23
Romer
the
United
States Supreme
Court
the Colorado
invalidated
example
voters
Ct 2652
passed
o nly
that
California.
51
Id
Proposition
between
marriage
Cal Const Art I
man
the
provides
California
woman
and a
7.5 Hollingsworth
California
another
Cases
opinion in In re Marriage
amended
which
violated
it
632 33
at
After the California Supreme Court filed its
California
provide
amendment because
constitutional
States Constitution
is
valid
Constitution
US
Perry
to
or recognized
in
133
2013
2659
At the time
case
this
was argued
October 2013 only a minority of
in
had
states
antidiscrimination
laws
enacted
sexual orientation as a protected
identifying
laws 8 Only
samegender
permitting
six states had recognized
marriages or
civil
for purposes of
class
the validity of and enacted
unions
at
time
the
this
legislation
was
opinion
filed
Del Laws ch 19 2013 Minnesota 2013 Minn Sess Law Serv 74 West
New Hampshire 2009 N
Laws 6066 New York N
Dom Rel Law 10 a Consol
Delaware 79
2011
Rhode
Resolves
respective
RI
Island
constitutions
to
15 1 1 2013
Gen Laws
Four states Massachusetts

require
samegender
and Vermont 2009
Iowa and Connecticut
California
Vt
Acts
interpreted
their
See In re Marriage Cases 183
marriages
P 3d at 452 Kerrigan 957 A 2d at 482 Varnum 763 N W 2d at 904 Goodridge 798

N E 2d at 968 In three states Maine Maryland and Washington the electorate voted in
Same Sex Marriage Wins on the Ballot for
Time
in
American
History
theatlantic com
Nov
7 2012
theatlantic com sexesarchive 2012 11same sexmarriage wins on the
same gender
ballotfor
samegender
favor of
the
First
http www
marriages Ashley Fetters
the first time inamerican
Finally three states
an
couples
New
history 264704
listing
the wording of each ballot proposal
Jersey Illinois and Colorado have
alternative
marriage and
to civil
makes
legislation that
available
to
grants
them many of the
14 15 102 to 119 2013 750

9
Ill Comp Stat 75 1 to 75 90 2011 N J Stat Ann 37 1 28 to 36 2006
The history we
have just recounted demonstrates that the members of the LGBT community do not have
benefits granted to married couples
sufficient political
52
Rev
strength to protect themselves
To complete
the analysis of whether
members
answer whether
See Colo
of the
LGBT
Stat
from purposeful
intermediate
community have
scrutiny should apply
been subjected
discrimination and political powerlessness based on a characteristic

their
Breen 2005 NMSC 028
control
individual
must be completely
8Twenty
state
civil
or
21
unable to change
human
rights
This
the
9Held
5687193
at
781
unconstitutional
See
n6
782
n 11
mean
must
beyond
that
the
See In re Marriage
Muehlmeyer Toward a New Age
the Public Accommodation
Gender
we
a history of
acts prohibit discrimination against consumers
See Justin
JL
cannot
characteristic
Access Rights Creating Space

Cardozo
to
that is relatively
requirement
based on their sexual orientation

in
discrimination
Spring
24
of
Consumer
LGBT Community 19
2013
by Garden State Equal
supra
for the
v Dow
A 3d
at
2013
WL
P 3d
Cases 183
receive
that
442
at
recognizing
the immutability factor
burdened
class
characteristic
it
would
so integral
with those
integral
sense of self
Cases 183
his or her sexual
763
N W 2d
we
Therefore
because
the
purposeful
LGBT
at
to
do so
in
this
if
whether the
is
he or she could change
order to avoid discrimination
question affirmatively regarding
holding that gays and lesbians are entitled to
P3d
at
Because
the expense of significant
marks and
quotation
a persons
not appropriate
orientation in order to
conclude
that
community
is
and
discrimination
442
at
only
all
at
internal
is
it
if
citation
omitted
sexual orientation is
to require a person to repudiate
avoid
treatment.
discriminatory
same
893
from such discrimination As

adversely
Instead the question
identity that even
be altered
an aspect of ones identity
or change
53
438 39
at
may
which
to the individuals
Varnum
relevance of
defining the
as a quasi suspect class because they are characterized by a central defining
see also In re Marriage
so
A2d
The
their
constitutional
at
which have answered
jurisdictions
of personhood
damage
893
can change
those instances in which the trait
the individuals
to
See Kerrigan 957
consideration
trait
to
impossible to change.
absolutely
is
is
not reserved
is
be inappropriate to require him or her
it
We agree
LGBTs
N W 2d
become citizens Varnum 763
religion or
such as religion and alienage
other classifications
that
scrutiny do so despite the fact that individuals
heightened
intermediate
must be applied in
scrutiny
a discrete group
that
has been subjected
has not had sufficient political
it
we
noted
in
Breen
to apply
strength
intermediate
this
case
to a history of
protect
to
scrutiny
affected by the legislation does not need to be completely politically
itself
the class
powerless
but must be limited in its political power or ability to advocate
within the political system.
2005 NMSC 028
require the
18
Id
It
is
appropriate
to
may have
apply intermediate
considered the issue Windsor
76 Varnum
It is
763
N W 2d
intermediate
scrutiny
political
at
scrutiny
even
United States 699
many
with
F3d
at
185
54
Before
we
individuals
right
opponents of
pursued by
proceed
same gender
that
a strict
Kerrigan 957
right
because no
New Mexico
state
is
same
reasons
is
strict
scrutiny
a fundamental
at
475
scrutiny
we
must
because
right
an
The
same gender They contend
it
determine
that
we
do not need
25
right
because
it
is
an important constitutional
constitutional provision guarantees such a right
we
A 2d
required
gender is not a fundamental
a question that has not been answered by the United
following
is
history and tradition nor is
correct question is whether the right to marry is a fundamental
which
20 Our
which have
marriage respond to Plaintiffs argument by redefining the right
the right to marry someone of the
not deeply rooted in
scrutiny level of review
as being the right to marry a person of the
Plaintiffs
demands
Id
jurisdictions
analyze the legislation under intermediate
marry the person of his or her choice
to
of
896
to
argument
level
though the darkest
passed for a historically maligned group.
scrutiny is consistent
same
process that strict scrutiny
unclear whether the right to marry is a fundamental right requiring
address Plaintiffs
that
does
for our courts to apply intermediate
period of discrimination
decision
Nor
from the majoritarian
extraordinary protection
right
We
conclude that the
requiring strict scrutiny
States Supreme
to definitively
Court For
answer
the
this difficult
question
55
Civil marriage
Marriage
survival.
1942
considered
is
one of the
is
quoting Skinner
The United
fundamental
State
importance
U S 374 384
been
recognized
for all
States
is
1978
as one
happiness by free
Oklahoma ex
of
Amendments Due
see also Loving

of the
men. When
Clark
fundamental
strict
in
any way
to
the incidents
Zablocki
95 97 1987
at
386
marry noting
that
other rights is subject to substantial
applying
Windsor
same gender
to
dissenting
noting
requiring strict
level
this
in
the
to
responsibilities
to
right
of
Redhail
marry has long
orderly
pursuit of
the United
However
marriage
regarding
every state regulation which
Turner
in
relates
U S 78 81
Safley 482
of strict scrutiny to
right to
marry like many
Id at 95
as a result of incarceration.
US
133
at
apply
not
We
cases
the level
strict
Ct
of scrutiny
at
2706
and
scrutiny
conclude
it
In
was
Scalia
central
its
from the United
States
these cases that whether the right to marry is a fundamental
scrutiny is a question
We
remains unanswered
that
when we
question here because Plaintiffs prevail
same gender
541
for marriage must be subjected to rigorous
does
majority
of review under an equal protection
Denying
1988
example
restrictions
marriages
the
that
12
determining whether the legislation
the Supreme Court left unanswered
Supreme Courts equivocation
answer
freedom
the prisoners fundamental
propositions are taken from rational basis
right
when
demand that
For
The
essential
the Supreme Court rejected the lower courts application
a prisoners right to
United States
12
at
the right to marry as of
are affected by legislation
rights
of or prerequisites
US
434
US
U S 535
Process Clause. Zablocki
at
U S 456 461
Jeter 486
388
our very existence and
rel Williamson 316
rights
scrutiny
the United States Supreme Court does not
scrutiny.
US
388
personal
vital
Loving
to
and as part of the fundamental
individuals
Supreme Court has applied
constitutional
eg
See
right
civil
States Supreme Court also has described
privacy implicit in the Fourteenth
434
be a
to
rights of man, fundamental
basic civil
do not need
apply an intermediate
to
scrutiny
analysis
couples the right to marry and
all
and
of the rights protections
under state and federal law does not survive intermediate
available
scrutiny
56
We
will
marriage can
attendant
statutory
important
interest is
on the sensitive
whether the
governmental
57
We
class
identified
compared
legislation
interest
have
over
is
Id
interpreted
to
issue in this case
same gender
we
couples
of
samegender
its
to
an
2005 NMSC 028
Breen
must balance
who
the right to
marry
with
of
others
least
the opponents
all
that interest
restrictive
in
its
30
Once
the
against the burdens placed
or under inclusive
the
if
is substantially related
See
interest
legislation is
the
statutes at
rights protections
governmental
governmental
whether
uphold the
prove that denying
Id
31 We
consider
application and attempt to determine
alternative
for protecting
the
important
32
the argument
suggesting that there are three governmental
of the
opponents of
interests
26
samegender marriage as
samegender couples
for prohibiting
from marrying in the State of

in
promoting
Second
they
argue
New Mexico
procreation
First they argue that the governmental
who
couples
Third they suggest
interest
samegender
because people
deinstitutionalization of marriage
in responsible
will
couples
marriages than they have in the past
admitted
lacked
evidence
to
married couples divorcing
result in
by the evidence
supported
AGW
they
Consultants
at
show
child rearing
2005 NMSC 016
the contention
24
marry will
in the
result
is
samegender
marriages
Because
contention
without
this
merit
N M 734 114 P 3d 1050
137
justifies
of marriage
their
During oral argument opponents
allowing
an increased rate
the record
in
that
to
interest
prohibition
spend a smaller proportion of
adult lives in intact

that
marriage
marry from the benefits and protections
allowing
that
samegender
the
justifies
the governmental
that
same gender
depriving
laws
responsible
would
not
is
Wagner
See
the party with the
burden of proof in a constitutional challenge must support his or her argument with a firm
rationale or evidence in the record
legal
To
internal quotation
was
the extent that the deinstitutionalization argument
moral disapprobation
been between a
58
man
In Lawrence
made
clear that
it
interest
is
it
of homosexual
and a
Texas 539
U S 558
2003
582
traditionally
have been rejected
the United
States
Supreme Court
has never held that moral disapproval without any other asserted
a sufficient rationale
discriminates
justifications
omitted
citation
and tradition
that marriage has
activity
woman
both
marks and
intended to inject into the analysis
among groups
under the Equal
of persons.
not appropriate
is
It
Clause to
Protection
state
a law that
justify
to define the States interest
as maintaining the tradition of marriage only between opposite gender couples any more
than
was
it
appropriate
samerace
maintaining
of
tradition
sufficient
traditional is
A 2d
59
at
same gender
marriages
of marriage has been between a

basis
Loving
interest in
for the
challenged
because
man
exclusion
and a
To
388
US
interest
the
and
historic
that
the
12
as only
as maintaining the
woman
cannot
say
at
cultural
in itself provide
discrimination
is
to say only that the discrimination has existed for a long time. Kerrigan 957
478
We
attendant
are left
to
already
legislation
indicated
It is
and the States
whether
decide
rights protections
important governmental
have
the States
marriages Articulating the governmental
excluding
understanding
a
to define
and
interests
are
not
in
samegender
in
exclusive
the
marriage
with
all
of
its
substantially related to the purported
responsible procreation
supported
the marriage partners
interest in their
prohibiting
responsibilities is
history
we
and child rearing, which

of
New
Mexicos
marriage
and permanent commitment to one another
stable relationship that are indispensable
requisites
of a civil
marriage
60
We
procreation
how
separately
consider
the
purported
forbidding
same gender
the
interests
marriages
of fewer
responsible
in
we
fail
to
see
marriages will result in the marriages of more opposite gender
couples for the purpose of procreating or

in
governmental
and responsible child rearing Regarding responsible procreation
how
authorizing
samegender
marriages will result
opposite gender couples for the purpose of procreating
discriminatory classification is also glaringly
under inclusive
27
Discriminatory
The
legislation
is
under
inclusive
with respect
Marshall
if
does not include
the classification
dissenting
Regarding
all
law Dandridge
the purpose of the
to
who
of those
US
Williams 397
471
1970
529
oppositegender
procreation the legislation is
or choice
disability infertility
marriage
10
mean by
the
purported
do not
they
if
legislative
because the
inclusive
from marrying even
couples
same gender
under
Finally although
responsible
statutes
because
procreate
of
responsible
age
of
physical
not clear what the opponents
is
it
goal
do not prohibit
when
procreation,
of
same gender
childless
couples decide to have children they necessarily do so after careful thought and considerable
expense
because for them
a family requires either lengthy and intrusive adoption
to raise
procedures or assistive reproduction
oppositegender
61
Same gender
couples
We
Mexico
62
to
couples
are as capable of responsible
conclude
there
that
marriage laws and the purported
The
final
samegender
reproduction
a substantial
governmental
interest
who want
to marry and
furthers the States purported
LGBT
have
interest
in
that
capable
serve as the foundation
own
children
or assisted
residing in their households
and
of entering into the kind

for families or that they
The 2010 United
reported that at that time there were 111,033 households headed

with their
of federal and state laws
promoting responsible child rearing
caring for and raising children
of responsibly
New
in responsible procreation
families by adoption
individuals are fully
of loving and committed relationships
as are
relationship between
issue is whether denying the rights and protections

couples
In this case no one denies that
are capable
not
is
procreation
that
by
States Census
same gender
couples
of those households
1,038
were in New Mexico United States Census 2010 and 2010 American Community Survey
Same Sex Unmarried Partner or Spouse Households by Sex of Householder by Presence of

Own Children available at http www census gov hhes samesexfiles supp table AFF xls
The New Mexico Court
automatically
render
1992 NMCA 012
NMSA
person
19 113
have custody
couples
of Appeals
the
to
that
have
a persons sexual orientation does not

custody
N M 581 829 P 2d 660

under the
rights to children
40 11A 101
1978
has held
unfit
to
903
2009
of
children.
AC
This Court has held that
New Mexico
among
because
CB
same gender
Uniform Parentage Act
other reasons
it is against
public policy to deny parental rights and responsibilities based solely on the sex of either or
Chatterjee
both of the parents.
Association which
there is no scientific evidence
See
orientation
that
5 37
is
parenting
M E Lamb Mothers
doubtful
that
effectiveness
to
the government
the right of privacy means anything
be free from unwarranted
a person as the decision
governmental
whether
to
Psychological
is
related to the parents
Fathers Families and Circumstances
Sci 98 111
2012
sexual
Factors
M E Lamb
could preclude any couple from marrying because
they are unwilling or unable to procreate See Eisenstadt
If
The American
curiae in this case cites to studies indicating that
Childrens Adjustment 16 Applied Developmental
10It
Affecting
2012 NMSC 019
a brief amicus
filed
it
is
Baird 405
U S 438 453
1972
the right of the individual married or single
intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting
bear or beget a child.
28
Lewis
The
Developmental
CJ
ed 2005
5th
Diversity in
Role
Parent Child
of
An Advanced
Science
PD
Patterson
Handbook
MH
429 68
Hastings
Development
Child
in
Context
Socialization in the
in
M E Lamb eds
Bornstein
Family
of
PD
328 51 JE Grusec
Theory and Research
Socialization
of
Relationships
Textbook
eds 2007
Hastings
samegender
63
We
need not go further than the record
in this case have
Plaintiffs
been
in
a committed relationship for
grandchild
and have
Plaintiffs
and grandchildren
twenty five
AD and Greg
raised a foster
child
case for persuasive evidence
have been
together
Miriam and Ona have been
been
a committed relationship for seven years
in
Plaintiffs
Monica
and Cecilia have
been
the United States
64
We
fail
to
in
Plaintiffs
a committed relationship for twenty one years and have
in
raised three adopted sons together one of

in
and one
raised three children
committed relationship for fifteen years and have raised three daughters together
Jen and Angelique have
of the
and many of them
relationships
Plaintiffs
years and have
that
many
previously discussed
long term committed
in
are raising or have raised children
in this
As we have
parents
parents are responsible
whom is
serving our country
as an enlisted soldier
Army
see
how
depriving committed
samegender
couples who want
to
marry
childrearing
and
of federal and
families
raise
child rearing by heterosexual
responsible
for
marital
state
samegender
couples is
married couples
marriage
Innumerable
We have
40 3 7 to
married couple
opinion See
The New Mexico
45 2 807 a
to
as
benefits
and
In the
final
result
analysis
come
with
benefit
of a
several relating to community property rights in this
wife
addressing the property rights of husband and
45 3 203
1978
A2
See
NMSA
1978
of the community property
1975
as
amended
through
goes
2011
granting priority of the appointment as personal representative to the surviving spouse

did not nominate
decedent
devisee
a personal representative
NMSA
damages
decisions
through
1997
2007
13 1887 as amended through
damages are allocated

See
or exclude
Married persons are granted property exemptions
trustees to preserve essential resources and a
10 1 to
to
1978
to
a surviving spouse
41 2 3
the surviving
spouse
for an incapacitated
2009
1882
as
home
types of
when a
amended
tortfeasor
through
the
the surviving spouse as a
for the family
listing
if
from creditors receivers or

See
NMSA
1978
exemptions Wrongful
42
death
causes the death of a spouse
2001
allocating wrongful death
A spouse has priority to make health care and end of life

NMSA 1978
24 7A 1 G 1995 as amended
a spouse NMSA 1978
24 7A 5
1 1995 amended
spouse
by virtue of being
in
the status of being
inure to the
contains other benefits and protections
NMSA
will
and protections
amended through 1993 one half
spouse
the surviving
1975
Code
Probate
1975
statutory
identified
17
protections
made more difficult by denying them
married and depriving them of the rights protections

civil
and
benefits
Conversely a member of an unmarried couple must establish the quality and quantity
of the relationship with
his or her incapacitated
partner
issues
contentious
before he or she can make health care and
the incapacitated
partner
See
24 7A 5
of indefinite duration with the patient
B2 A
may act
29
that
end of life
frequently
decisions
become
on behalf of
n individual in a long term relationship
as a surrogate to
make health care
decisions
for the patient
65
Children
and
benefits
are also both
protections
and
directly
available
to
the
indirectly
married
beneficiaries
couple
Children
presumption of legitimacy when they are born to a married couple

the
event
of
separation
40 4 9
proceedings
addition
as
we
child
which
important doctrine
divorce
or
We
courts
noted in Chatterjee
have
protections
have
not
available
identified
attempted
the best
child
40 4 9.1
interests
the
custody
and the
of the child
In
the best interests of a child do not depend on a parents
2012 NMSC 019
34 37
an exhaustive
to provide
with the stability
of the statutory
and
rights
of the statutes that
we
of the relationship and the safeguarding
of
resources The burdens on
many
of
same gender
couples
who
want
to
marry and
are deprived of federal and state benefits and protections compared to opposite gender
couples
who
protections
inequitable
want
is
to
marry and are therefore
readily apparent
The enhanced
and
if
for federal
eligible
samegender
income and the laws
create
not only during
end of life
circumstances
samegender couples
protections
of New Mexico
denying
financial security
the
children
are forced
into
but also in the event
the right to
marry the
laws
divorce
benefits
state
of a separation or divorce
samegender
visitation
laws
that
them of
minimize uncertainty
and
their
laws
child
couples
courts of equity without the benefit of property division
support child custody and
for married
This is evident
Legislature also deprives
Instead
and
are not legally permitted
marriages
that
and
couples are important sources of stability for a family bonded by marriage
By
statutory
from
40 11A 204
orderly
custody
joint
consider
to
Section
from
benefit
a married couple but the essence
to
is to assist
important collective
who
40 4 11
support
requires
sexual orientation or marital status
66
children
list
In
of the
benefit
for the family unit
samegender
67
same gender
Excluding
couples
couples
from
from enjoying the security
civil
that
marriage
prevents
children
of
flows from the rights protections
and
childrearing
New
accompany
civil
marriage There
is
no substantial relationship between
Mexicos marriage laws and the purported governmental

There
is
and federal
state
nothing
benefits
rational
interest
of responsible
about a law that penalizes children by depriving them of
because
the
government
disapproves
of their parents
sexual
orientation
68
We
invited
the active
participation in this case of amici curiae
important issues before us were properly and thoroughly briefed
The
parties and amici have had ample opportunity to articulate
justification
for limiting marriage to opposite gender couples
for the discriminatory legal classification are categorically

legislative
of children
their
scheme
that is
Denying
intended
samegender
to
at
to
ensure that the
and argued
to this
Court
a constitutionally adequate
The supposed
justifications
odds with the comprehensive
promote stable families and protect the best
interests
couples the right to marry and thus depriving them and
families of the rights protections
and
equality demanded by the Equal Protection
responsibilities
Clause of the
30
of civil
marriage violates the
New Mexico
Constitution
Remedy
69
New
Having declared the
remedy
the appropriate
We
Mexico marriage laws unconstitutional
decline
would be wholly inconsistent
to strike
down
we now
determine
our marriage laws because
doing so
with the historical legislative commitment to fostering
families through these marriage
laws
stable
marriage shall be construed to
Instead civil
the voluntary union of two persons to the exclusion
of all others
In addition
all
mean
rights
protections and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally
to
both
same gender
contained in
or the
NMSA
common law
and opposite gender married couples
1978 Chapter 40
whenever reference
immediate family dependent
New
or any other
is
made
to
context denotes a marital relationship the same
they are
marriage husband wife spouse family
widow
next of kin
Therefore whether
Mexico statutes rules regulations
widower or any other word which
shall
apply
to
same gender
couples
in
who
choose to marry
70
be
With respect
certificate
the
shall
be
New Mexico
applicants
71
the forms required by Section
We
40 1 17
as provided
substantially
gender
Constitution
states
in
40 1 18 gender neutral
that
Section
language shall
the form of application
40 1 18.
neutral language shall
be
license and
Therefore to comply with

utilized
in identifying the
and spouses
grant a writ of superintending
with the holdings
72
to
by the Clerks Section
utilized
IT IS
and rationale of
this
control and order the courts to mandate compliance
opinion
SO ORDERED
EDWARD
WE CONCUR
PETRA JIMENEZ
MAES
RICHARD
C BOSSON
CHARLES
W DANIELS
BARBARA J VIGIL
Chief Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
31
L CHVEZ
Justice
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Katharine
Sent
12 19 2013 12 31 51
Subject
Re
I actually
going into
need to
session
more
Can
time
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Dec
Proposed
Schedule
19
back
to
you all
2013
of
at
11 52 AM
dorsayindianlaw
This
Lea
communication
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
any attachments
distribution
prohibited
of
Notice
comply
To
contained
ii
promoting
herein
for the
and
our proposed
Plaintiffs
and
Motion
County
Plaintiffs
are hereby
Reply
due
of
Reponses
on or before
will
due
Obviously
this may be affected

calling
Lake
and
Also I ve attached
the
under state statutes
Lea
New
Mexico
they
Oliver
NM
SCT
12192013
ve
Supreme
Ann
Greigo v
protected
that
of
another
based
any U S
is
not
under
party
or shred
any disclosure
any action
penalties
and
is
federal
any transaction
you
or
strictly
tax advice
to
Internal
If
the
copying
on it
intended
the
or confidential
by law
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
motion
be asking
on or before
for expedited
hearing
on the
motion
1 30 2014
2 13 2014
by whatever
today
privileged
is
this communication
inform you that
Also
the Court will set a scheduling conference
anticipate will be on or before 12 23 2013
has been
and
any attachments
to
wrote
may contain
notified
avoiding
We
com
purpose
for a summary judgment
on 1 9 2014
Defendants
and
taking
we
including
or recommending
schedule
filed
or the
regulations
purpose
marketing
any attachments
you should delete
be used
dorsayindianlaw
individual
this communication
with IRS
Easton
LEaston
including
are not
State
I can sign off on this

legislature will be
availability for their review
We might need
tomorrow
Ann
com mailto
for a specific
is
Motion
Justice
intended
Here
Summary Judgment
Counsel
information
cannot
for
Lake Perriguey
Potter
LEaston
Notice
VON TER STEGGE

PM
check with my electeds before

and I need to get a sense of
get
Trial Division
Oregon Department
On
Sheila
pdf
after
BRO files
filed
the
the
County
Jennifer
complaint
Court decision
files
Middleton
its
answer which
BRO s lead
we
counsel
today
allowed
From
Jennifer
To
Potter
CC
KDiaz
Sent
12 19 2013 1 34 38
Subject
Complaint
Attachments
13 1219 Complaint pdf
Middleton
Sheila
aclu or org
Misaak
Rummell
filed
perkinscoie
com TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
PM
v Kitzhaber
et al
et al
Hi Sheila
As promised here
Basic Rights
case
is
a copy of the Complaint that
Education
as soon as possible
soon as you can
and
questions
We
Fund
hopefully
do not want
Monday
or
to
look forward to working
just
filed
even tomorrow
Of course feel free to contact
we
slow anything
me
or
my
in
US
District
Court in Eugene on behalf of two couples and
down and so
Please
co counsel
intend
me know
Tom Johnson
let
to
move
to consolidate
with the Geiger
the State s position on consolidation

at Perkins
Coie
as
with any concerns or
with you again
Jennifer
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
Street
Eugene
OR 97401
541
PC
1050
683 2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
If
Schaller
Ste
NOTICE
This message
you have received this message in error
may
contain
please delete
confidential
it
and
communications
notify
the sender
protected
by the attorney client privilege
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Case
R Johnson
Thomas
TRJohnson
Document 1
OSB No
com
Filed
12 19 13
Page 1
of
Page
30
ID
Kevin Daz OSB No 970480

KDiaz aclu or org
010645
perkinscoie
J Holm OSB No 112607

KJHolm perkinscoie com
Misha Isaak OSB No 086430
ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON INC
MIsaak
Telephone
Kristina
perkinscoie
PERKINS COIE
NW
com
Telephone
P O Box
40585
Portland
OR
97240
503.227.6928
Facsimile 503.227.6948
LLP
Couch Street Tenth

1120
Floor
Rose Saxe
RSaxe aclu org
503.727.2000
Amanda Goad
AGoad aclu org

No
Middleton OSB
JMiddleton jjlslaw com
Jennifer
JOHNSON JOHNSON
AMERICAN CIVIL
FOUNDATION
071510
SCHALLER
PC
OR
Eugene
Telephone
125 Broad Street 18th Floor
New York
975 Oak Street Suite 1050
LIBERTIES UNION
NY
10004
97401
Telephone 212.549.2627
541.683.2506
Pro hac vice applications
ACLU
to be submitted
attorneys on behalf of the
Cooperating
Foundation of Oregon Inc

DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
PAUL RUMMELL and BENJAMIN WEST
LISA CHICKADONZ and CHRISTINE TANNER
BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION
Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT
v
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
as Governor
ROSENBLUM
in
Health
capacity
Statistics
FOR DECLARATORY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
his official
Oregon ELLEN
her official capacity
General of Oregon
her official
in
of
JENNIFER
No
FUND
Pursuant to 42
as Attorney
WOODWARD
U SC
AND
1983
in
as State Registrar Center for
Oregon Health Authority and
RANDY WALDRUFF
in
his official
capacity
as

Defendants
COMPLAINT
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Couch Street Tenth Floor
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Document 1
Paul
Plaintiffs
organization
transgender Oregonians
42
U SC
1983
same sex
same sex
through
marriage
Since
partnerships which
offer
dignity of that status
from marrying as a
amended in 2004
to
marry based
to
result
in
commitment
to
October
and other committed
16 2013
in
couples
samesex
confers upon
It
the Oregon Constitution was
by excluding
them from the freedom
sex
Attorney General for the state of Oregon issued
same sex
couples
Windsor
The
next
day
the State continues
after
who
the
the Chief Operating
Jordan directed
Oregon
all
state
including
to refuse to allow
samesex
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
enduring
couples in Oregon are barred
marriages performed outside of
Nevertheless
and
couples to enter into domestic
of Administrative Services Michael
all
of
Oregon
to do so would likely be unconstitutional
rights
by the exclusion
together
begin to respect the marriages of
United States
immediately to recognize
COMPLAINT
the Deputy
refusing
Officer for the Oregon Department
samesex
bring this action pursuant to
of marriage and provide none of the
protections
single out lesbian and gay Oregonians
Supreme Courts decision
same sex
solely on their sexual orientation and their
On
of Oregon to different sex couples
of existing Oregon statutes and because
married in other states because
marriages of
legal
state
is
bisexual and
have formed committed
Plaintiffs
Fund
for the violation of Plaintiffs
relief
build family
has allowed
only some of the
Plaintiffs
and Christine
society as the universally recognized
immense import
a legal opinion that the State could
agencies
Plaintiffs
to marry under the laws of the state of
2008 Oregon
Yet
gay
to the United States Constitution caused
bonds equally worthy of the respect afforded by the
through
ID
Page
30
Lisa Chickadonz
the rights of lesbian
and injunctive
Marriage plays a unique role
celebrated hallmark of a couples
of
Basic Rights Education
Plaintiff
education and advocacy
Amendment
couples a dignity and status of
couples
works to advance
that
couples from the freedom
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
seeking declaratory
12 19 13
Rummell and Benjamin West and
Tanner are two loving committed
not for profit
Filed
life
Case
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Case
couples to marry in
entities
like
Oregon
Document 1
Mr
Further
Filed
Jordans
The
from marriage
exclusion
For example
couples and their children
ID
Page
30
of
binds only state agencies
directive
not other
serious and irreparable harms upon
inflicts
Paul and
Plaintiffs
marry for the same reasons as different sex couples

commitment before
security
their
that
marriage for
to
Fund
samesex
couples
same sex
and wish
to
declare their love and
publicly
their
child
only marriage provides
that
transgender individuals
same sex
are unmarried
Basic
has a long history of public education
gay bisexual and
Ben
family friends and community and to give one another and
and protections
Plaintiff
organization
exclude
Page 3
courts and local governments
L B the
12 19 13
These
Rights
and advocacy
efforts
include
Basic Rights opposed amending
couples from marriage and
a statewide
rights
civil
for the rights of lesbian
opposition to restrictions on
the Oregon Constitution to
active in ongoing
is
it
is
to repeal that
efforts
provision
Our
courts and our society have
discarded one by
one
marriage laws that
the Constitutions mandate of equality such as anti miscegenation
violated
denied married
women
legal
independence and the
History has taught us that the vitality
discriminatory
enhanced
laws To
the institution
different
marrying and the
institution
Plaintiffs
17
states
and the
law and
on them by the marriage ban and Defendants
this suit
pursuant to 42
U SC
that
the States exclusion
COMPLAINT
District
of
Columbia same sex
of
to
means
to
secure their rights to
enforcement
of it
Accordingly
and injunctive
couples from marriage through
relief
Plaintiffs
bring
on the grounds
the Oregon Constitution
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
couples are
eliminate the myriad serious harms inflicted
1983 seeking declaratory
samesex
has
to thrive
seek equal access to marriage as the only
of the
restrictions
of lesbian and gay couples from marriage is no
of marriage continues
due process and equal protection
for themselves
decisions
eliminating these unconstitutional
Ending the exclusion
in
make
that
of marriage does not depend on maintaining such
the contrary
Indeed as of today
right to
laws and laws
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
and Oregon
statutes
Amendment
violates
Document 1
Filed
the due process and equal protection
Page 4
Page
30
of
ID
guarantees of the Fourteenth
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
Paul
Portland Oregon
Rummell
Paul age
Paul
43
is
Ben
and Benjamin West
are a gay couple residing in
a veteran of the United States Air
Force
the past worked
in
age
35
worked for twelve years
he expects to complete
in
2015
in
to
in
Ben
the theatre arts and for the last nine years has been working in the renewable energy field
in
II
12 19 13
the financial services industry and is currently in a program
become
Paul and Ben were born and raised
a registered nurse
Oregon and had religious upbringings
Paul and
but decided to go with
walked
into
a pub
conversation
Ben met
some
after
during
Gay
friends because
a Pride block
it
Day
was Fathers
2006
Paul does not usually attend Pride
of the unseasonably good weather
party Paul was struck by his presence
and Paul was touched by the
father because
Pride in
Their
fact that
first
kiss after walking around Portland for hours
Ben had
As
They
soon as Ben
up a
started
spent time earlier in the day with his
date the following evening ended with a single
They began
seeing each other regularly and after
three months they decided to live together
10
Paul and
Ben have combined
household they were denied a
income to qualify
However
low interest
their
finances
veterans
loan because
they were unable to include
married They ultimately did purchase a house but not
rate
Ben
Fortunately Pauls employer provides
are concerned
sometime
in
11
at
they live as one
they needed
his income because
the
more
favorable
to
about what might happen to their medical
they were not
veterans
interest
coverage
if
Paul has to change
jobs
the future
In
2010
COMPLAINT
Paul and
Ben knew
they wanted to be committed to one another
their
respective
Even
faiths they decided to hold a
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
include Bens
domestic partner insurance benefits but Paul and
though they could not marry under Oregon law or
Even though
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Case
wedding
ceremony
like
on August
place
21 2010
Mayor Sam Adams

parents attended
much wants
very
12
to
Document 1
with family and friends present
make
Bens declined
have a
the proceedings
was
Paul
marriage because
civil
fathers
They ultimately decided they wanted
children
who
the training
home
home
him
very
low
2012
become
hand
checks
in
The ceremony
took
asked Portlands then
the sanctity
of marriage and he
represents
candid about their desire to be
foster parents to focus on helping
in
Paul and Ben completed
life
necessary
L B a sixyear old
L B. s history
Ben
Paul and
step of the adoption
14
Ben were
ID
all
of
to begin caring for children in their
a year and a half they had long term placements of three children
Ben worked
developed a deep parental love for
last
to
it
Ben
Page
30
care for almost ten additional children
In June of
placed with Paul and
of
more legitimate Although Pauls
feel
of what
particularly difficult
studies and background
respite
13
for
dealt
In the course of about
and provided
Page 5
Paul and
raised to believe
Early in their relationship Paul and
had been
12 19 13
declare their love and commitment to each other
to officiate to
to
Filed
Paul and
to
made
boy with serious behavioral
the likelihood of finding a
and exclusively with
extensively
him They
decided to adopt
LB and
issues
was
long term placement
L B and
are
now
in
the process
waiting for the
be finalized
Ben want
to
make
sure that
L B grows
up in a safe and stable home
without the repeated message from society that their family is less worthy of dignity and respect
than anyone elses family
relationship
and especially
officials
They
are concerned
Paul and Ben are a
classmates because
their
They
When
their
very
they travel
relationship to
much want
samesex
couple and
L B would
teased or bullied by his
LB.
be recognized
to be legally married in
for each other and their
COMPLAINT
LB being
peers
may not
by other people or government
Oregon
not just so that others recognize
but so that they will have
the important legal
new family
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
understand
they are concerned about whether or not their relationship
the love and commitment of their relationship
protections
about
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
15
that
Oregon
of nursing
included
Chris have
work
Lisa age
Chris age
in
clinical
Filed
Lisa and
Lisa Chickadonz
residing in Portland
professor
Document 1
66
is
research
56
12 19 13
Christine Tanner
is
Page 6
Chris
of
ID
Page
30
are a lesbian couple
a nurse and midwife and also is an assistant
semi retired and
currently
has had a long career in nursing
and administrative capacities
teaching
Both Lisa and
lived in Oregon for over 30 years
16
Lisa and Chris met in 1982 and began dating in
1985
In September
1986
they
had a private commitment ceremony and exchanged rings Shortly thereafter they decided
and
create
in
raise
a family together
1991 and Jacob was born
home
in
Lisa is the birth mother for their two children
1994
studies and related expenses
The
as possible to creating the
same
Katie
to
was born
couple spent thousands of dollars in attorney fees
to perform second parent adoptions for each child so that
The
Chris would be a legal parent to both children
to
legal rights
and
couple did what they could
responsibilities
to
come
as close
of married couples with respect
the two children
17
They
In addition
jointly
own
all
to having raised their children
of their major assets and have
legal
together the couple shares everything
planned
Again
medical emergencies with the help of attorneys
for
retirement and the possibility of
they have tried to approximate
rights and responsibilities between each other that married couples enjoy in
so has cost them thousands of dollars they otherwise
marry
in
Oregon
respective
wills
These costs are ongoing
When
licenses to
samesex
wanted
to
Oregon
would not have had to spend
and most recently involved
the
if
same
Doing
they could
issues about the couples
and health care directives
18
the
news broke
couples on
that
March
Multnomah County would

2004
begin to issue marriage
They had
Lisa and Chris did not hesitate
be legally married for years and headed down
to
the county building the night before
Chris with a broken leg and a lawn chair stayed out
all
morning Lisa brought
be together as a family While waiting
line the children
their
children
were subjected
COMPLAINT
to
so they could
derogatory
all
night to be
first
in line
in
comments about homosexuality from opponents
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
The following
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
of marriage for
same sex
Document 1
19
and celebrated by
Upon
And
celebration
20
their
their arrival
with
how
home from
part of their life
their
members with whom
the wedding
ceremony
significant
marry Lisa and
21
it
When
represented
introducing
love and commitment by granting
to their
was acknowledged
they shared years of
their
neighbors
difference
in
how
joined in the
their
extended
each other as a spouse there
in their
the
Importantly
same
rights
the state of
and
of their relationship by hanging
their
home
Lisa and Chris were devastated after their marriage was invalidated by the Oregon
prohibit state recognition
laws of Oregon
their
of marriages for
36
by the State they called
home
which amended the Oregon Constitution to
same sex
marriage didnt exist
they would have to say they were not
22
They
couples
If
someone
now
asked them
Their marriage license
it
that
married again
whether or not they should register
registering
was
not the
awful that under the
same
now
if
they were married
serves as a painful reminder
down
After the Oregon Legislature passed a domestic
Chris considered
felt
Their love and commitment was no longer
of the fact that they are not married so they took
recognized
them and
to
After almost 20 years of not being
Chris memorialized the recognition
Supreme Court and the passage of Measure
recognized
Lisa and
understood what their relationship meant to each other and
the couple as any other married couple
framed marriage license
was
it
question of the level of commitment that relationship entailed
responsibilities to
hand
a minister in their church
meaningful
in
ID
Page
30
of
certificate
Their love and commitment
fellow church
now
Family members
central
Page 7
them
Oregon also recognized
able to
2004 by
both Lisa and Chris experienced
family interacted
was no
March
they were legally married
that
involvement
what a
of
12 19 13
and with marriage
Lisa and Chris were surprised at
community
respected
Undaunted
couples
Chris were married the afternoon
Filed
partnership
They knew what
it
law
was
to
2007
Lisa and
be married and
Lisa and Chris decided to wait until they could
get
they wanted the real thing
COMPLAINT
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
in
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Case
23
and plan
Document 1
Lisa and Chris have
to
spend the
rest
their
formed under the laws of Oregon
organization
dedicated to education
a broad and inclusive
bisexual
They have
Rights
is
ID
raised a family
Oregon
a not for profit
Basic Rights is a statewide civil
rights
gay
for equal rights for lesbian
Basic Rights mission statement provides
that
it
will
and transgender Oregonians experience equality by building
powerful
politically
Page
30
of
to get legally married in
Basic
about and advocacy
bisexual and transgender Oregonians
gay
Page 8
minister
their
Fund
organization
ensure that all lesbian
They want
church and by
Plaintiff
12 19 13
been together for almost 30 years
of their lives together
amongst friends and family in
24
Filed
movement
shifting public opinion
and achieving
policy victories.
25
same sex
state
Basic Rights has been deeply involved
couples in
recognition
Oregon
2004
In
of marriage for
marriage statute
Oregons
to
nine
of
couples
When
legal
samesex
couples
filed
BRO
a declaratory
and the County began
the ballot initiative
marriages for
samesex
that
BRO
to
work
to
although
section
helped to organize
20
exclusion
of the Oregon Constitution
the campaign
to
in
opposition to Measure
After narrowly losing that campaign Basic Rights
of
was an
the validity of Measure 36 under the Oregon
Measure
36
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
that
Basic Rights was not a named party in the suit Basic Rights continues
repeal or overturn
COMPLAINT
judgment action seeking a declaration
organizing force behind a lawsuit that challenged
Constitution
to
that
along with the American Civil Liberties Union and
amended the Oregon Constitution
couples
to prohibit
refused to register the licenses Basic Rights
couples from marriage violates Article
was amended
counsel to assess the constitutionality of Oregons
the State Registrar
Later that year Basic Rights and
36
its
to marry for
counsel and the States legislative counsel both concluded
entity Basic Rights Oregon
same sex
for the freedom
couples Basic Rights worked with the Multnomah
marriage statute was unconstitutional
same sex
affiliate
The Countys
advocating
before the Oregon Constitution
samesex
County Board of Commissioners and
in
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
26
constituents
The
Document 1
exclusion
of
and Basic Rights
The
gay
exclusion
men
same sex
same sex
entitled to
and living
are less than equal
in
work
community
resist
As a
to
to
poverty
of
samesex
couples
same sex
creates
Partnership
Resource
In addition
COMPLAINT
men
lesbians and bisexuals and
inferior
mechanism to ensure
ORS
106.300
this legislation
of
Raising
required
significant confusion
couples
Guide
about what domestic
partnerships are and
For instance Basic Rights created
people about the unfamiliar
Basic Rights participated
with the Oregon Bureau of
to
various state agencies
to
re write forms and
Basic Rights also regularly fields inquiries about
assists
about the status
same sex
couples
who
state
Oregon domestic
have been subject
to
unequal
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
rights
educate
Labor and Industries to convene
and
This creates
Basic Rights must expend resources educating
what rights they do and do not provide
partnerships
to be raising
likely
of resources by Basic Rights
same sex
the public including
more
This exclusion
couples from marriage Basic Rights had
about and promoting the passage of
institution
of the civic
by the States marriage laws
for an alternative
The Oregon Family Fairness Act
websites
are
that
isolating communities already experiencing
promote the equal dignity of gay
significant expenditure
Domestic
who
couples the Oregon Family Fairness Act
and rights of
for Basic Rights inasmuch as Basic Rights must organize in the
and advocate
awareness
members
racism homophobia and transphobia
of the exclusion
innovate
same sex
further
the message of inequality conveyed
result
an impression
diminished respect and inferior rights
the impacts of systemic
additional
ID
Page
30
of
couples from marriage promotes
disproportionately impacts people of color
children
Page 9
couples from marriage injures both Basic Rights
lesbians and bisexuals
community
12 19 13
For instance
itself
of
Filed
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Document 1
Filed
12 19 13
Page 10
treatment in violation of the Oregon Family Fairness
The
exclusion
of
same sex
many
Due
marriages
identification
of
whom
confront
in
vulnerable
require
efforts
or wish to enter permanent
uncertainty
about the legal status of their
to the complexity and cost of changing
documents
gender markers on legal
seeking relationship
are rarely able to do so with certainty
recognition
10
couples from marriage also imposes significant and
unique burdens on transgender people who are
relationships
Act These
ID
Page
30
of significant resources by Basic Rights
the expenditure
of
leaving
Basic Rights expends resources advising
relationships
their
transgender people on their
relationship rights
The
of
right
importance
same sex
to
lesbian
couples to marry in Oregon is of such fundamental
gay
the majority of the organizational capacity
for public education
engage
in
and advocacy
other critical
work
to
and resources available
the organizations
limits
For instance
Oregon Safe Schools Act of 2009
Oregon
This
that
Basic Rights worked
create a safe environment
This has been an organizational priority
especially
to
districts
are
freedom
to
still
not in compliance
more than one third
with the
law
If
samesex
marry in Oregon Basic Rights could devote
requires
Basic Rights
ability
to
to
advance
the
for all students in
of incidents
in light
of gay and transgender youth being bullied and committing suicide
nearly five years after the laws passage
it
Nonetheless
of Oregon school
couples had the
more
significantly
resources to addressing this and other important issues
Defendants
27
of
Oregon
the States
He
is
laws
is
sued
vested with the chief executive
including the marriage
10 COMPLAINT
ban
in
his official
capacity
as Governor
power of the State and has the duty
are faithfully
executed
Or Const
art
to
see that
1 10
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
of the state
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Governor
Document 1
Filed
12 19 13
Page 11
agency policies relating
of the executive
recognizing
to
vital
records tax obligations
ORS
marital status
those appointees
for various reasons
same sex
recognized
couples to
Governor
10
Governor
the obligations
including for
marry or
have
to
collegial
their
of which
all
state
involve
Kitzhaber appoints the heads of various
same sex
couples and
may
remove
they administer laws relating to the
valid marriages from other jurisdictions
members
of boards
bodies for misconduct including a failure to comply with
Governor
of the federal Constitution
U SC
how
Kitzhaber also has authority to remove from office
commissions councils and
of 42
180.060
with responsibility for recognizing the marriages of
of
11
branch including administrative
employee benefits programs and regulation of health professions
ability
ID
Page
30
Kitzhaber and his subordinates also bear the authority and responsibility for the
formulation and administration of the policies
agencies
of
Kitzhaber is a person within the meaning
state
law
at all
times relevant to this
complaint
28
General for the
include
state
enforcement
180.210
of
Oregon
As
of the States
She also has
ull
laws
to
protect
tate,
enforce obligations created
times relevant
29
to this
including advising
by the
US
ORS
180.220
Constitution through
ORS
180.220 180.240
1b
She also has the
her ability to initiate
Ms
Rosenblum
state
duties include
Statistics
is
sued
in
law
is
suit
at all
directing and supervising
State
as the State
Registrar
the Center for Health
Ms
Statistics
and
its
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
180.060
such departments commissions and
11 COMPLAINT
ORS
her duties
of all the legal business of all departments
U S Constitution
U SC
Oregon
complaint
Registrar Center of Health
Woodwards
of 42
as the Attorney
including the marriage exclusion
the interests of the States citizens
person within the meaning
in
the chief legal officer of the state of
bureaus of their obligations under the
to
sued
charge and control
commissions and bureaus of the
power
is
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
system of
Document 1
records directing
vital
Filed
ORS
records
furnishing forms for the marriage license marriage certificate
ORS
license used in the State
with the State Registrar
filed
ORS
432.405
with relevant
Ms
state
Woodward
is
laws
432.405
and she
is
30
for
is
responsible
for
for marriage
of 42
U SC
through
samesex
all
been
of these functions
couples from marriage
1983 and was acting under color
complaint
Waldruffs
in
the county
Waldruff must comply with
samesex
U SC
is
sued in his
official
capacity
as the County Assessor
duties include issuing marriage licenses levying and
and forwarding a record of each marriage
state
law
in
Mr
Defendants
through
the States marriage
their
Waldruff
state
respective
is
acts
law
at all
ban Each Defendant and
if
not enjoined
that
duties and obligations
alleged here proximately caused the
injure Plaintiffs irreparably
the State Registrar
a person within the meaning of
are responsible for
those subject to their direction
supervision and control intentionally performed participated
manner the
to
performing his duties including those laws
31
enforcing
She
and application
must ensure compliance
marriages licensed
42
of all persons
for registering marriage records that have
including those that currently exclude
Mr
12
a fee on each marriage license solemnizing marriages maintaining records relating to
collecting
exclude
responsible
to this
432.030
ID
Page
30
of
All marriages performed in the State must be filed
Multnomah County
Mr
Ms Woodward
of state law at all times relevant
Page 12
supervising and controlling the activities
of the system of vital
pertaining to the operation
12 19 13
harm
Accordingly
in aided
and or
abetted in
some
alleged herein and will continue
to
the relief requested herein is sought
against each Defendant as well as all persons under their supervision direction
or control
including but not limited to their officers employees and agents
III
32
Plaintiffs
JURISDICTION
bring this action under 42
under color of state law of rights secured
12 COMPLAINT
AND VENUE
U SC
1983
to
redress the deprivation
by the United States Constitution
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
33
to
28
Document 1
Filed
This Court has original jurisdiction
U SC
12 19 13
Page 13
of
Page
30
ID
13
over the subject matter of this action pursuant
1331 and 1343 because the matters
in
controversy
arise
and laws of the United States
34
Venue
is
proper in this Court under 28
Defendant Kitzhaber maintains
reside within the state of
claims took
Plaintiffs
35
offices
Oregon and because
1391
36
2 because
and
County Oregon and
in Marion
a substantial
part of the events
This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory
Civil Procedure and 28
b1
Defendants
all
that
gave
rise
to the
within this District and Division
place
preliminary and permanent
in
official
U SC
injunctive relief
U SC
pursuant
to
judgment and
to
provide
Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of
2201 and 2202
This Court has personal jurisdiction
over Defendants
because they are domiciled
the State
IV
Plaintiff couples
37
challenges
of family life
freely
Marry
to
as their heterosexual
may marry
Plaintiffs
families and nurture their children
and respect afforded
status
Eligibility
of marriage
enforcement
by the State
The
States
of that exclusion
to
and legal protections
38
and
Ben
wish
to
But for the
marry in
this
13 COMPLAINT
State
experience
co workers
are productive
other families through
and other community
contributing citizens
to
them and
their
children
class status relative to
of equal dignity
other Oregon families
they are of the
same sex
both of the Plaintiff couples
are legally qualified to marry under the laws of the
Each
is
support
of Plaintiffs from marriage and Defendants
over the age of
17
fully
competent and
is
Paul
Oregon and
not precluded
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
who
access to the universally celebrated
subjects Plaintiffs to an inferior second
afforded
the same joys and
but must do so without the same legal shelter dignity
exclusion
fact that
and Lisa and Chris
who
neighbors
the rest of the political community and deprives
security
OF FACTS
Plaintiff couples are residents of Oregon
members who
their
STATEMENT
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
from marriage as a
willing to provide
fee
Document 1
of having
result
12 19 13
Filed
Page 14
another spouse or being closely
ID
14
They
are
Page
30
of
related to the other
information to receive a marriage license and to pay the required
the requisite
They are able and eager to assume the
responsibilities
of marriage
The Oregon Marriage Ban
39
In
amendment
to
subdivisions
recognized
submitted
Measure
following
that
providing It
only a marriage between one
Or Const
is
voters approved
the policy of
man and one woman
Measure
Oregon and
shall
its
36
an
political
be valid or legally
5a
art 15
Measure 36 passed narrowly
Proponents of Measure 36 secured
men and
public fear of and animus against gay
the following
campaign
a ballot initiative
as marriage.
40
leveraging
2004
For instance
lesbians
statements for publication in the statewide
its
passage by
proponents
Voters Pamphlet regarding
36
a
we
If
forced
normalize homosexual
to
place
marriage the
foster children
in
samesex
state
will
be
households
Schools and society will be teaching the next generation

the
equality of
the importance
samesex
cause kids to question

experimentation
marriage changing our views of
of gender and the nature of family
It
will
sexual identity and increase
their
with a behavior
that is
neither emotionally
nor physically healthy.
To radically and fundamentally change

marriage to include
to reject
Gods purpose in marriage for
children
and a nation
standing
to
and
unnatural
irreversible
the definition of
what God considers an
abomination is
men women
Providing equivalent
legal
relationships will force devastating
changes
to
our society.
YES on Measure 36 Because Its the Way Nature

Meant
to Be A Marriage between a man and woman is
more than just about a loving relationship
also about
Vote
its
it
the laws of nature.
MYTH
Homosexuals
denied the protections

the
to
protections
same sex
suffer serious
of marriage
harm because
theyre
REALITY Many
of
granted by marriage are already available
couples through
the use of private contractual
arrangements .
14 COMPLAINT
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Document 1
Same sex
on children
Filed
marriage
It
is
is
12 19 13
Oregon
If
want to
wise or compassionate
sic able
is difficult
it
of any sex
ID
15
to
to
social experimentation.
Constitution requires two individuals of
the
the same sex be
Page
30
of
a vast untested social experiment
never
intentionally subject children
Page 15
to
to
marry simply because they
argue larger groups of individuals
polygamy or
polyamory should not also be
able to join in group marriage.
Defining marriage as between one female and one male
does not violate anyones

one can marry their
rights
civil
For example no
sic sister brother mother or father
parent cannot marry his or her children
considered
And
not
its
discrimination to forbid marrying a child or
having two spouses.
41
had proven
parents
Also
a recurring claim in Voters Pamphlet statements
same sex
relationships to be unhealthy
was
that scientific
and bad for children being raised by
The Oregon
marriage statute provides
that
arriage is a civil
contract entered
into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age.
106.010
Numerous
106.150
1 requires
and wife.
other Oregon statutes refer to a husband and wife
Similarly under
ORS
106.041
the authorization
conducting
husband and wife the persons named
in
43
In
2008
samesex
to join together
couples with
some
legally
recognized
of the legal protections
is
ORS
not a marriage
and obligations
106.300
ORS
Act
which
of marriage by
The Family Fairness Act
106.305
In fact the
recognize that numerous distinctions will exist
relationships
The
Legislative Assembly recognizes
that
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
as
the license.
findings of the statute explicitly
15 COMPLAINT
ORS
a properly issued
the Oregon legislature passed the Oregon Family Fairness
clearly states that a domestic partnership
between these two
accompanying
the marriage ceremony
a parallel institution of domestic partnerships
legislative
For instance
ORS
the parties to a marriage to declare that they take each other to be husband
marriage license requires the official
creating
samesex
This and similar claims were and are untrue
42
provides
studies
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
the legal recognition
On
Filed
this state
and cannot impact
26 2013
June
in
12 19 13
Page 16
under the laws of this state
of domestic partnerships
beyond the borders of
44
Document 1
United States
may
ID
S Ct 2675
Windsor 133
16
not be effective
contained in federal law.
restrictions
Page
30
of
2013
Id
US
the
Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had prevented the
federal government
45
On
October
17 2013
the Deputy
samesex
couples
Attorney General issued an opinion letter to the
Office of the Oregon Department
Chief Operating
that
from respecting the valid marriages of
That
of Administrative Services
letter
states
because Oregon generally respects out of state marriages the State may respect the
marriages of
samesex
46
likely
couples
who marry
in
other states
In the opinion letter the Deputy
barred recognition
of
out of state
Attorney General recognized
marriages of
denial of such respect would be unconstitutional
compelling
state
partner of each
sex no
from recognizing
in
acknowledge
that
that
the
any legitimate
much
less
Oregon contain one
in
benefit to Oregon results from that limitation and no injury would result
the marriages.
Oregon
couples but concluded
in requiring that each marriage recognized
in
but refusing
The
letter
continues
the form of domestic
marriages the
partnerships
interest
interest
Measure 36
under the United States Constitution
the opinion letter noted that we cannot identify
Specifically
recognition
samesex
that
would have
state
partner registration
to articulate
to recognize marriages
would pass constitutional
same sex
at
To
are given
legal
defend a refusal to
a state interest in allowing
and again
muster even
relationships
we
cannot point to any such
the lowest possible
level
of scrutiny
rational basis review.
The States Exclusion

on Plaintiffs
47
Barring
of
same sex
Same Sex
Couples from Marriage
Inflicts
Profound
Harm
couples from marriage disqualifies them from critically
important rights and responsibilities that different sex couples rely upon to secure their
16 COMPLAINT
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
commitment
to
Document 1
each other and
to
12 19 13
Filed
safeguard their families
Page 17
By way
of example
ID
Page
30
of
17
only same sex
couples are denied
The
state sanctioned marriage
to solemnize their relationships through
ability
ceremonies
The denial of
state
sanction or recognition
couples of important legal protections
that
deprives
automatically
come
samesex
with
statesanctioned
marriage
The
ability
to safeguard family resources under an array of laws that protect
spousal finances including for
example
the exemption
income of the value of health insurance coverage
through
the others
the property
employment and
for virtually all purposes throughout
benefits
financial
Many
harm
not only to
same sex
Although the Chief Operating
performed outside Oregon

and local governments
married
only
17 COMPLAINT
not bound by
samesex
couples
Jordans
may
copyright
and veterans
resources
couples but to their children
state
agencies
samesex
Mr
than 1,000 statutes and
drain family economic
Jordan has directed
directive
more
to
of
recognize
all
marriages
not other entities like courts
couples in Oregon are denied rights and
of such rights and responsibilities is
directive
whether government
or private
By
be denied
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
causing
as well
of marriage to the extent enjoyment
entities
of example
this
Thus
the
relating to marriage including laws pertaining to
of these deprivations
Administrative Services Michael
way
taxes on
Unmarried couples are denied
housing taxes criminal sanctions
Social Security
on
of federal
of certain elderly or disabled residents
numerous federal regulations
contingent
the exemption or deferral
the whole realm of federal regulations
recognition
responsibilities
one partner receives
host of federal rights and responsibilities that span the entire United States
Code and
48
that
from federal taxable
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
The
to
ability
priority
Document 1
make
caretaking
make medical
to
Filed
12 19 13
Page 18
for an incapacitated
petition a circuit court for an autopsy the automatic
and the automatic
right
and
priority
to
make
spouse the
ability
18
to
interment
authorize
right to
anatomical
ID
Page
30
and disaster including
decisions in times of death
decisions
of
of a decedents
gifts
body
The
ability
to support each other in
end of life
assured privacy for visits with a spouse
the right to share a
The
right
room
with a spouse
an individual
if
if
circumstances
is in
such as being
a nursing
both reside in the same nursing
under the laws of intestacy to claim an elective
to inheritance
spouses estate rights in the family residence pending
deceased
survivor benefits for a spouse and children of an individual
In the event
home
share in a
killed
example
while
duties
firefighting
that
and
final
determination of the estate and other survivor benefits including for
performing
home
a couple separates
access to an orderly dissolution process for
terminating the relationship and assuring an equitable
division of the couples
assets and debts
49
While
samesex
couples are eligible to enter into domestic
Oregon law those domestic partnerships are not
protections
Couples
to
marriage and do not offer the
full
For example
of marriage
identical
partnerships under
who
ineligible
have entered into domestic partnerships under Oregon law will be
for virtually
all
the federal protections
otherwise
available
to validly
married couples
Couples
may
who
not have
recognize
18 COMPLAINT
enter into domestic partnerships
those relationships
respected
or statuses
to
in
Oregon
who
travel
other states
the extent those states do not
apart from marriage
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
to
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
50
In addition
social recognition
that
Document 1
harms
to the tangible
conveys
marriage
Filed
12 19 13
listed
Without
above
by invoking
their
51
include
their
commitment
The
substantive
harms
stability permanence
critical
to
to
same sex
couples
that
to
communicate
By
children
who
their
moments
denying
52
accordingly
in a
way
that
bonds and a
same sex
must
support as other families
couples
in
that
are less consequential
spouses
possibility
that
others
of
is
samesex
a powerful teacher
class
interest
same
societal
to justify
own
children
that their
and
recognition
marking the children of
of inferiority
their
that will
persons with
invite
lives
of discrimination to others
instruct all
family
of families as less worthy than
couples are not worthy of the protections
policy the State and Defendants
19 COMPLAINT
may
can avoid by simple reference to being married
State has no adequate
interact including those couples
By
decreeing
of marriage and
whom samesex
couples
relationships are less worthy than
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
Same sex
children
social legal educational and medical settings and in
on the playground and in every other sphere of
The government
the relationships
enforcing
the
including the children of Plaintiffs with a badge
disrespect in school
that
their
with the ever present
of marriage and not entitled to the
The
who
of demonstrating
Children from a young age understand that marriage signifies an enduring
other families undeserving
53
of the
couples marriage the State reinforces
parents and their children
live
way
familiar public
unit and likewise understand when the State has deemed a
same sex
couples
are enjoyed by children of different sex couples
samesex
familial relationship
of crisis
samesex
are equally deserving
enduring and meaningful than those of different sex parents and
question
others the depth and
to
sanctuary to the family unit offering parents and children
secure legal parent child
the family bonds that tie
that
are denied the unique
Plaintiffs
and dignitary inequities imposed on committed
and legitimacy
those bonds to third parties
view
19
or to obtain respect for that commitment as others do simply
Civil marriage affords official
means
ID
Page
30
married status
particular
marry
of
access to the familiar language and legal label
of marriage Plaintiffs are unable instantly or adequately
permanence of
Page 19
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Document 1
Filed
12 19 13
Bearing the imprimatur of the government the
others
marriage
ban and
enforcement
Defendants
and
are unfit for the dignity respect
of it
stature
to
Page
30
of
ID
20
and constitutional
statutory
States
communicates
afforded
encourages others to follow the governments
Page 20
a view that
same sex
and
couples
this
example in discriminating against them
samesex
54
Many
private entities defer to the States conferral of marital status in defining
family for purposes of an array of important benefits often resulting in the exclusion
health insurance for family
committed
same sex
if
marriage were available
from important safety nets such as private employerprovided
members The
State and Defendants also encourage disrespect of
other major arenas of life
by others
in
workplaces schools businesses and
in ways that would be less likely to occur and
to
of
samesex
more
readily corrected
couples
Same Sex Couples from Marriage is Not Even Rationally

Governmental Purpose Let Alone Substantially Related to
an Important Government Purpose or Narrowly Tailored to a Compelling
Governmental Purpose
The
States Exclusion of
Related
to a Legitimate
samesex
55
No
legitimate let alone important or compelling
couples from the historic and highly venerated
capacity
to
establish a loving and enduring
institution
of marriage
protections
it
56
provides
same sex
An
exclude
individuals
relationship does not depend upon that individuals
sexual orientation or sex in relation to his or her committed life
legitimate interest in justifying
interest exists to
couples
exclusion
partner nor is there even a
from marriage and the spousal
on such bases
The Deputy
Attorney General already has recognized
that
denying respect to the
samesex
marriages of
continue
couples does not benefit heterosexual
to enjoy the same rights and status conferred
couples
equally
samesex
may marry in Oregon unimpaired by
to lesbians and gay
20 COMPLAINT
couples
Different sex spouses
by marriage regardless of whether
the acknowledgment
that this
freedom belongs
men
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
will
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
57
protections
the
Because
Document 1
Filed
out of state
samesex
the State already grants
associated with marriage through
samesex
marriages of
12 19 13
Page 21
couples
couples denying
marriage license within the state of Oregon advances
samesex
many
ID
Page
30
of
21
but not all of the legal
now
and
registration
respects
couples the ability to secure a
no possible government
interest
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

of Due Process
S Const Amend XIV
Deprivation
58
incorporate
Plaintiffs
complaint as though fully
59
Plaintiffs
set
The
pursuant to 42
state
Fourteenth
U SC
1983
this
Amendment
provides
Fourteenth
The
in this
liberty interests
marriage for
to
no
state
shall
deprive
U S Const amend XIV

15
section
same sex
5A ORS
couples violate
enforceable
any person of life liberty or
1
106.010 and
all
other sources
the due process guarantee of the
to marry the unique person of ones choice and to direct the course of
right
intimate realm without undue government
protected
restriction is
one of the fundamental
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe this right for
Defendants
all
capacities
Amendment
62
ones life
that
of state law that preclude
in their official
property without due process of law.
61
of the paragraphs of this
all
forth herein
60
by reference and reallege
lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs interfering with a core life altering and
intimate personal choice
63
autonomy
The Due
Process
Clause also protects choices central
including each individuals
rights to
to
personal dignity and
family integrity and association
Defendants
actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe upon the deeply intimate
21 COMPLAINT
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Document 1
Filed
12 19 13
Page 22
Page
30
of
ID
22
personal and private decisions of lesbian and gay Oregonians regarding family life and preclude
them from obtaining
full
liberty dignity and security
for themselves
their
families and their
children
64
As
the States chief executive
enforce the States marriage
policies
of the executive
tax obligations
state
professions violate
ban
branch
including those taken pursuant to his responsibility for the
relating
for example health insurance coverage
the fundamental
right to
As
with
rights
to liberty dignity
the Attorney General Defendant
state
law
autonomy
Amendment
family integrity
duties and actions to ensure
violate the fundamental
right to
family integrity association
As
the State Registrar Defendant
Groom, and refusing
rights
same sex
by
for
example
furnishing forms for
couples from marrying by requiring a Bride and a
to register marriage licenses of
to liberty dignity
Amendment
67
As
autonomy
same sex
couples
violate
same sex
the fundamental
their
constitutional
and due process under the
actions to ensure compliance
denying
Woodwards
marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs as well as
Fourteenth
rights to liberty
and due process under the Fourteenth
with the States discriminatory marriage ban
marriage licenses that prohibit
right to
marry of
66
compliance
records
Rosenblums
ban
autonomy
lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs as well as their constitutional
dignity
vital
marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians including
and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
65
compliance
to
employee benefits programs and regulation of motor vehicles and health
Plaintiffs as well as their constitutional
association
officer Defendant Kitzhabers duties and actions to
Multnomah County Defendant
couples marriage licenses violate
the fundamental
Waldruffs
by
right to
for
duties and
example
marry of lesbian
and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs as well as rights protected under the Fourteenth
22 COMPLAINT
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Amendment
association
liberty
Ben
and due process of Paul and
and due process
69
in
interests
Page 23
autonomy
liberty dignity
to
with a fundamental
autonomy and
satisfy
right
the
Due
VI
Clauses
may
Plaintiffs
set
state
this
U SC
1983
provides
of
equal protection
more
difficult
that
to
Equal
Protection
XIV
all
marriage for
Moreover by
state
in their official
U S Const
15
section
same sex
amend XIV
5A ORS
106.010 and
all
its
Amendment
other sources
of their
both facially and
enshrining discrimination in the form of a constitutional
Constitution Article
15
section
5A
deprives
to secure legislation on their behalf
The conduct
lesbian and gay Oregonians
process and making
of Defendants
in
it
of
uniquely
enforcing
these
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
capacities
enforceable
deny to any person within
shall
of the laws by locking them out of the political
23 COMPLAINT
governmental
that
no
of the laws.
marriages violate the equal protection
amendment Oregon
by
of state law that preclude
decree
Amendment
Fourteenth
73
marry
forth herein
jurisdiction
right to
be sustained only upon a showing
incorporate
Plaintiffs
pursuant to 42
fundamental
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
U S Const Amend
The
23
tailored to any legitimate interest at all
Deprivation
72
ID
family integrity
Process
or liberty interest
interest as the marriage ban is not even
71
Page
30
and Lisa and Chris
the burden is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling or even
70
of
self determination in the most intimate sphere of their lives
Defendants cannot
interference
12 19 13
actions thus deny and abridge Plaintiffs
Defendants
penalizing Plaintiffs
that
Filed
68
and
Document 1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
laws violates the
right
Document 1
Filed
12 19 13
Page 24
As
enforce Measure
executive
branch
obligations
state
36
orientation or
compliance
As
with
for example health insurance coverage
Amendment
law
of the
records tax
vital
of motor vehicles and health
constitutional rights to equal treatment without regard to sexual
Plaintiffs
state
by
officer Defendant Kitzhabers duties and actions to
employee benefits programs and regulation
sex
75
to
24
sex
including those taken pursuant to his responsibility for the policies
relating
professions violate
ID
Page
30
of lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs to equal protection
discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and
74
of
Rosenblums
ban
violate the constitutional rights of all
lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs to equal treatment
76
compliance
As
Groom, and refusing
constitutional
As
same sex
Ben
78
furnishing forms for
same sex
couples
violate
States
marriage
the constitutional
ban and
Defendants
and deprives
their
Waldruff
by
for
duties and
example
rights to equal treatment
class
citizens
own
24 COMPLAINT
children
through
men
all
denies
and bisexuals as well as
persons with
same sex
safety net of rights and
a message of government imposed
by instructing
that their
actions to enforce it
families of a critical
The marriage ban brands lesbians gay
private bias and discrimination
their
stigma and fosters
whom same sex
relationship is less worthy than others
couples interact
The
States
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
the
and Lisa and Chris
second
including their
The
responsibilities
as
example
couples equal dignity and respect
children
for
to register marriage licenses of
of Paul and
same sex
by
rights of lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs to equal treatment
77
denying
Woodwards
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Document 1
marriage ban and Defendants
gay
men
Page 25
actions reflect moral disapproval
Same sex
ID
Page
30
of
25
and antipathy toward lesbians
couples such as the Plaintiff couples are identical
couples in all of the characteristics
80
their
12 19 13
and bisexuals
79
couples
Filed
Same sex
relevant
make
couples
the
to
to
different sex
marriage
same commitment
same sex
couples fall
in
to one another as different sex
love build
their lives
together plan
samesex
when
81
Plaintiffs
and to provide the same
82
children
seek to marry for the
legal shelter to their
dignitary reasons
families as different sex spouses
Like some different sex couples
some same sex
couples are parents raising
together
83
Plaintiffs
responsibilities
and
their
children are equally worthy of the tangible
couples the tangible resources and
precious
rights
and
dignity and legitimacy that access to marriage confers on
as well as the respect
different sex couples and their children
same emotional romantic and
For the
societal
many
esteem
that
children
being raised by
samesex
access to marriage confers is
no
less
than for children of different sex couples
Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
84
The
marriage ban targets lesbian and gay Oregonians
as a class for exclusion
from
marriage and discriminates against each Plaintiff based on his or her sexual orientation both
facially
and as applied
85
The
exclusion
subjects Defendants
cannot withstand
of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sexual orientation
conduct to
strict
or at least heightened
because the exclusion
25 COMPLAINT
scrutiny which
Defendants
does not even serve any legitimate governmental
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
conduct
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Document 1
Filed
12 19 13
Page 26
interests let alone any important or compelling interests nor does
it
of
ID
Page
30
26
serve any such interests in
an adequately tailored manner
86
Lesbians gay
men
and bisexuals have suffered a long and painful history of
discrimination in Oregon and across the United
87
contribute
Sexual orientation bears no relation
to
Sexual orientation
and conscience
that
a person
possible as a condition
89
may
is
a core defining
professional
all
to perform in or
ability
trait
that is
so fundamental
to
abandon
to
even
it
ones identity
if
that
were
of equal treatment
No
credible
is
evidence
fixed at an early age and highly resistant to change
supports the notion that such interventions
or safe indeed they often are harmful and
effective
an individuals
not legitimately be required
Sexual orientation generally
intervention
virtually
to
society
88
through
States
organization
approves interventions
are either
damaging No mainstream mental
that
attempt to change
of them have adopted policy statements cautioning
health
sexual orientation
professionals
and
and the public
about these treatments
90
prejudice
that
Lesbians gay
against them continues
might ordinarily be
protections
sex based
at
relied
and bisexuals are a discrete and insular minority and ongoing
seriously to curtail the operation
upon
to
protect
minorities
Gay
men
employment
public accommodations
bodies have been stripped of the
amendments and are currently not permitted
right
and housing
to
in
at
against
the federal level and in
federal state and local
marry in a
total
of 35 states and have been
process more than any other
group
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
rights
to marry through 30 state constitutional
targeted across the nation through the voter initiative
26 COMPLAINT
civil
had when race and
and bisexuals lack express statutory protection
than half the states are systematically underrepresented
democratic
women
fewer
processes
were declared to be suspect and quasisuspect respectively
Lesbians gay
discrimination in
of those political
people have
the state and federal level than racial minorities and
classifications
91
more
men
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
Filed
12 19 13
Page 27
Page
30
of
ID
27
Discrimination Based on Sex
92
The
solely because
93
devoted
woman
94
The
that
men
sex based
she is a
precluded
States
Given
and wives there
96
is
The
classifications
Lisa is precluded
man
and not a
to
as validly married
same sex
partner of the
life
were Lisa a
is
facially
from marrying her
man
she could marry
a man and not a
woman
marry Ben under Oregon law
marriage ban also serves the impermissible purpose of enforcing
women
that
marry a
from marrying Ben because he
as validly married because
95
to
woman
he would be able
should marry
gender
wishes
sex stereotypes by excluding
perpetuating
recognized
of these
is
from marriage or from being recognized
Plaintiffs
partner because
Chris Similarly Paul
were Paul a
Plaintiffs
each of the
Because
life
sex both
marriage ban discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of
and as applied barring
of
Document 1
and
same sex
couples from marriage or from being
those couples fail
women
and
to conform
should marry
to
sex based
stereotypes
men
there are no longer legal distinctions between the duties of husbands
no basis for the sex based
exclusion
eligibility
requirements
for marriage
of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sex and the enforcement
based stereotypes cannot survive
the heightened
scrutiny
required
for
sex based
discrimination
Discrimination With Respect to Fundamental Rights and Liberty Interests Secured
by
the
97
Due Process Clause

The
marriage ban discriminates against lesbian and gay Oregonians
sexual orientation and sex with respect to the exercise of the fundamental
their liberty interests
in dignity
autonomy and
treatment with respect to Plaintiffs
their
sexual orientation and
scrutiny which
Defendants
27 COMPLAINT
sex
right to
exercise of fundamental
subjects Defendants
marry and
Differential
rights and liberty interests based on
conduct to
strict
conduct cannot withstand
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
based on
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
U SC
98
2201 and
2202
12 19 13
set
denial of equal treatment
to Plaintiffs
of a declaratory
100
law or
favorable
all
because Defendants
present and ongoing
subjects them to serious and immediate
harms
warranting
judgment
decision
enjoining Defendants
would redress and prevent the
101
same sex
in
Oregon currently allows
of marriage through
The
couples
Oregon whereas
subjecting
remedy
equity
in
protections
28
Rules 57 and 65
irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs identified herein for which Plaintiffs have no adequate
at
ID
Page
30
of
forth herein
This case presents an actual controversy
the issuance
Page 28
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
incorporate
Plaintiffs
99
Filed
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
VII
28
Document 1
same sex
couples to access
some
but not all of the
domestic partnerships and respects out of state marriages of
State will incur
the hardship
little
to no burden in allowing
samesex
for Plaintiffs of being denied equal treatment
them to an irreparable denial of
their
constitutional rights
The
couples to marry
is
severe
balance
of hardships
thus tips strongly in favor of Plaintiffs
VIII
WHEREFORE
A
section
5A
Declaring
that
respectfully request that this Court enter judgment
the provisions of and enforcement
of state law that
marriages of
Protection
Plaintiffs
1 exclude
samesex
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
same sex
couples
violate
Permanently
28 COMPLAINT
couples from marrying or
Plaintiffs
rights under the
to
the United
2 refuse
Due
States
recognition
Process
to the
and Equal
Constitution
by Defendants of Article
15
section
Oregon Revised Statutes 106.010 and any other sources of
5A
state
of
law to
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
15
Oregon Revised Statutes 106.010 and any other sources
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
samesex
exclude
Document 1
Filed
12 19 13
Page 29
of
Page
30
couples from marriage or to refuse recognition to the marriages of
ID
29
same sex
couples validly married in another jurisdiction
Requiring Defendants
licenses to
samesex
applicable
to different sex couples
D
to
inter
Awarding
alia 42
couples to
U SC
in their official
marry pursuant
Plaintiffs
freedom
their
to
to
capacities to permit issuance
the
same
restrictions
and limitations
marry
costs expenses and reasonable attorneys
fees pursuant
1988 and other applicable laws and
Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper
29 COMPLAINT
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.6
of marriage
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Case
6 13 cv 02256 TC
The declaratory
each Defendant
persons acting
supervision
Document 1
and
injunctive
against each Defendant's
in
active conceft
direction
DATED f ecember
Filed
relief
officers
or participation
12 19 13
Page 30
action
in this
requested
Page
30
of
ID
30
sought against
is
employees and agents and
against
all
or under any Defendant's
with any Defendant
or control
19,2013
Thomas
TRJohnson perkinscole
Kristina J Holm OSB
KJHolm perkinscoie
No
010645
com
No
112607
com
OSB No 086430
MIsaak perkinscoie com
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie t t p
Telephone
Middleton OSB
lslaw com
Jennifer
JMi
503.727.2000
ddleton
Johnson
541.683.2506
Cooperating
attorneys
ACLU
OSB
on behalf
No
Foundation
of
of
the
Oregon Inc
of
Foundation
Kevin Daz
071510
Schaller Pc
Johnson
Telephone
ACLU
No
jj
970480
Oregon Inc
KDiaz aclu or org

Telephone
Rose
503.227.6928
Saxe
American
Civil
Union Foundation
Liberties
RSaxe aclu org

Telephone
212.549.2627
Amanda Goad
American
Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
AGoad aclu org

Telephone
213.977
5244
Pro hac vice
30 COMPLAINT
applications
be submitted
to
Perlins Coie l
1120
NW
OR
Portland
FGAL28727382.6
lp
Couch Street Tenth
Phone
Fax
97209 4128
503.121
503.721
2000
2222
loor
H
VON TER STEGGE
2013 5 11 43 PM
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
12 20
Subject
FW
Attachments
JUSTICE
Sheila
Geiger 1834 Motion to Consolidate
4862328 v1 Geiger 1834
v1 Geiger 1834
FYI
multco us
katevts
Memo
in
Support
Memo
Motion
of
Mtn
to
to
in
Support
Consolidate
Consolidate
11
PDF
12 PDF
JUSTICE
4862333
No
Thomas
Johnson OSB No 010645
TRJohnson perkinscoie com
Kevin Daz OSB

MIsaak
Telephone
PERKINS COIE
1120
Portland
com
LLP
N W Couch
PO Box
40585
Portland
OR
97240
503.227.6928
Street Tenth Floor
OR 97209 4128
Telephone
970480
KDiaz aclu ororg
Kristina
perkinscoie
Rose Saxe
RSaxe aclu org
503.727.2000
Amanda Goad
AGoad aclu org

OSB No
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
JOHNSON
Eugene
JOHNSON
OR
Telephone
com
jjlslaw
975 Oak Street
AMERICAN CIVIL
FOUNDATION
071510
Suite
SCHALLER
LIBERTIES
UNION

New York NY 10004
PC
1050
97401
541.683.2506
Cooperating
ACLU
on behalf of
of Oregon Inc
attorneys
Foundation
pending
the
Rummell West Chickadonz Tanner
and Basic Rights Education
Fund

DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION FUND
Plaintiffs
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Pursuant to
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
as Governor
ROSENBLUM
in
capacity
Fed
R Civ P
42
in his official
By
ELLEN
of Oregon
JENNIFER
Plaintiffs
Paul
Rummell
Benjamin West Lisa Chickadonz
her official capacity as Attorney
General of Oregon
her official
No 6 13cv 02256 TC
WOODWARD
in
Christine
Tanner and
Fund
Health Statistics Oregon Health Authority and
RANDY WALDRUFF
in his official
capacity
as
Defendants
Perkins
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28777986.2
Coie LLP
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222

WILLIAM GRIESAR
No 6 13cv 01834 MC
Plaintiffs
v
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
in
WOODWARD
JENNIFER
General of Oregon
her official
ELLEN
of Oregon
as Governor
ROSENBLUM
in his official
capacity
in
RANDY WALDRUFF
in his official
capacity
as
Defendants
CONFERRAL
Jennifer
Chickadonz
faith
Christine
with Lea
M Nelson
Middleton
Ann
Robert
counsel for plaintiffs
before
Mr
et
Rummell
West
Benjamin
Easton and Lake Perriguey counsel for plaintiffs Deanna
Duehmig
Perriguey
to
Lisa
confer in good
L Geiger Janine
and William Griesar Sheila Potter counsel for John Kitzhaber
Ms
Woodward
and Kate von Ter Stegge counsel for Randy
Ms
Potter and
having had an opportunity to review
Kitzhaber
Paul
Tanner and Basic Rights Education Fund attempted
Ellen Rosenblum and Jennifer
Wuldruff
CERTIFICATION
al No 613cv 02256
TC
von Ter Stegge
and consider
the
all
declined
complaint
consent
filed
to
the motion
in Rummel
et
al
and briefing on this motion
MOTION
Plaintiffs
Rights Education
Paul
Rummell
Fund
Benjamin
respectfully
move
West
Lisa Chickadonz Christine Tanner and Basic
the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Perkins
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28777986.2
Coie LLP
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
42
a2
02256
to consolidate
TC with
DATED
the action
the action
captioned Rummel et al
captioned Geiger
December 20 2013
et
al
v Kitzhaber
Kitzhaber
et
al No 613cv
et
al No 613cv 01834
MC
R Johnson
R
s Thomas
Thomas
Kristina
J Holm OSB No
112607

MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Perkins Coie LLP
Telephone
503.727.2000
Jennifer Middleton
OSB No
071510

Johnson Johnson
Telephone
Cooperating
ACLU
on
attorneys
Foundation
Kevin Daz
ACLU
PC
Schaller
541.683.2506
of
behalf
of the
Oregon Inc
OSB No
Foundation
of
970480
Oregon Inc
KDiaz aclu ororg

Telephone
503.227.6928
Rose Saxe
RSaxe aclu org

Telephone
Amanda
212.549.2627
Goad
AGoad aclu org

Telephone
American
213.977.5244
Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
Rummell West
Chickadonz Tanner and Basic Rights

Education
Fund
pending
Perkins
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28777986.2
Coie LLP
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Moon Samantha
From
info ord uscourts gov
Sent
Friday December
To
nobody
Subject
Activity
20
2013
1 15 PM
ord uscourts gov
in
Case
613 cv 01834 MC Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Motion to Consolidate
is an automatic e mail message generated

by the CM ECF system Please DO NOT RESPOND to
e mail because the mail box is unattended
NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits
This
this
and
attorneys of record
all
documents
all
other users
viewing
However
To
pro se litigants to receive one free electronic copy of
PACER
avoid later charges download a copy of each document during this
document
the referenced
if
including
receipt is required by law or directed by the filer
electronically if
filed
apply to
parties in a case
is
access fees
first
a transcript the free copy and 30 page limit do not
apply
U S District
District of
Notice of Electronic
The
following
Court
Oregon
Filing
transaction
was
Thomas on 12 20 2013
entered by Johnson
at
1 14 PM PST
and
filed
on
12 20 2013
Name
Case
Geiger et al
Kitzhaber et al
Case Number
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Filer

Paul
Fund
Rummell
Benjamin West
Lisa Chickadonz
Christine Tanner
Document Number 11
Docket
Text
Lisa
Chickadonz
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Jennifer
jmiddleton
jjlslaw
com
mailed
jjls
to
jjlslaw com
pjenkins
jjlslaw com
kdiaz aclu ororg
J Holm
Lake James
by Basic Rights Education Fund Paul Rummell Benjamin West
Tanner Johnson Thomas
Notice has been electronically
Middleton
Kevin Diaz
Kristina
Filed
Christine
KJHolm perkinscoie com DAnderson perkinscoie com
Perriguey
lake law works com
docketpor
perkinscoie
com
Lea
Ann
Misha
Easton
AD
Isaak
jj
dorsayindianlaw
com
kellyd dorsayindianlaw com
adargis perkinscoie com docketpor
perkinscoie
com
maguero perkinscoie com

Sheila
Potter
sheila
potter doj state orus samantha moon doj state or us
R Johnson TRJohnson
Thomas
6 13 cv 01834 MC
The
following
perkinscoie
com ADargis perkinscoie com
Notice will not be electronically
document
are associated
with
shiori iinuma doj state or us
this
mailed
to
transaction
Document description Main Document

Original filename Not Available
Electronic
STAMP
document Stamp
ordStamp ID 875559790
Date 12 202013 FileNumber 4608368
54ccca2ed33a9219d71019de2fcf53e7394cd47181f24d652442ae35e94c580232293
0d5766e10bce61c6736e09683f5928fb5f2db5e9c424ec37d985e934bf3
docketpor
perkinscoie
com
No
Thomas
Kevin Daz OSB

MIsaak
Telephone
PERKINS COIE
1120
Portland
com
LLP
N W Couch
PO Box
40585
Portland
OR
97240
503.227.6928
Street Tenth Floor
OR 97209 4128
Telephone
970480
KDiaz aclu ororg
Kristina
perkinscoie
Rose Saxe
RSaxe aclu org
503.727.2000
Amanda Goad
AGoad aclu org

OSB No
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
JOHNSON
Eugene
JOHNSON
OR
Telephone
com
jjlslaw
975 Oak Street
AMERICAN CIVIL
FOUNDATION
071510
Suite
SCHALLER
LIBERTIES
UNION

New York NY 10004
PC
1050
97401
541.683.2506
Cooperating
ACLU
on behalf of
of Oregon Inc
attorneys
Foundation
pending
the
Fund

DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
Plaintiffs
MEMORANDUM
JOHN KITZHABER
in
ELLEN
By
General of Oregon
her official
Pursuant to
in his official
of Oregon
as Governor
ROSENBLUM
SUPPORT OF
IN
capacity
No 6 13cv 02256 TC
capacity
JENNIFER
WOODWARD
in
Fed
Plaintiffs
Benjamin
Christine
R Civ P 42
Paul
West
Rummell
Lisa Chickadonz
Tanner and
Fund
RANDY WALDRUFF
in his official
capacity
as
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT
LEGAL28777991.2
OF
Perkins
1120
NW
Coie LLP
Portland
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222

NELSON
ROBERT DUEHMIG and WILLIAM GRIESAR
No 6 13cv 01834 MC
Plaintiffs
v
JOHN KITZHABER
ROSENBLUM
in
ELLEN
General of Oregon
her official
in his official
of Oregon
as Governor
capacity
capacity
WOODWARD
JENNIFER
in
RANDY WALDRUFF
in his official
capacity
as
Defendants
Paul
Plaintiffs
Fund
Rights Education
Rummel
et
captioned
al
Rummell
et
al
West
Lisa Chickadonz Christine Tanner and Basic
respectfully request that the
Kitzhaber
Geiger
Benjamin
et
Court consolidate
al No 613 cv 02256
Kitzhaber
et
TC with
al No 613cv 01834
the
the action captioned
previously filed action
MC
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs
Deanna
L Geiger Janine
initiated
an action on October
Jennifer
Woodward
U SC
1983
15 2013
against
and Randy Wuldruff
alleging that
M Nelson
all
Robert
defendants
named
Duehmig
John Kitzhaber Ellen Rosenblum
in their official
the state of Oregons exclusion
of
of
These plaintiffs
Lake Perriguey and Lea Ann Easton On December

Defendants
Kitzhaber
MEMORANDUM
Rosenblum and Woodward
IN SUPPORT
LEGAL28777991.2
OF
4 2013
all
capacities
same sex
marriage violates their rights to due process and equal protection
Amendment
and William Griesar
pursuant to 42
couples from
civil
are represented by attorneys
they filed an amended complaint
state officials
represented
by
Perkins
1120
NW
the
Oregon
Coie LLP
Portland
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
of Justice filed their answer on December
Department
13 2013
Randy Wuldruff has
Defendant
not yet appeared or answered
19 2013
Yesterday on December
Chickadonz
Christine
plaintiffs
ACLU
from Perkins Coie
With
motion
this
Fund seek
LLP
of Oregon
Foundation
Rummell Benjamin West
Tanner and Basic Rights Education Fund
Inc
They
Portland Johnson Johnson
in
Lisa
separate action
represented by
are
PC
Schaller
Eugene
in
the
and the national American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
plaintiffs
initiated
the same defendants
raising substantially similar claims against
attorneys
Paul
of the two actions
consolidation
DISCUSSION
Consolidation
Questions of
and Fact
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides
common
42
a2
The purpose of consolidation
as to avoid duplication
legal
and factual
quotation
fact
is
In re
TMI
to streamline
Litigation
C onsolidation
9A
The district court
would be
desirable
accomplish
the
is
Wright
193
F3d
of separate actions
it
Miller Federal Practice
given broad discretion
.Id
Further
consolidation
that consolidation
expense that
is
before the court involve a
the actions.
and economize
613
MEMORANDUM
Rather
under Rule
would cause
it
is
42 a
IN SUPPORT
OF
consent
presenting
for the
district
common
Procedure
and the
trial
court
judge.
is
to
against
involving
2383
so
similar
internal
issue
and economy
of the parties
proceedings
pretrial
decide whether consolidation
would produce
for the litigants
LEGAL28777991.2
t he
to
R Civ P
Fed
3d Cir 1999
724
permitted under Federal Rule 42 as a matter of convenience
administration.
effort
actions
of effort and to prevent conflicting outcomes in cases
issues.
omitted
If
may
consolidate
of law or fact the court
question
Common
For Actions Before the Same Court Involving
Warranted
is
Law
of law or
in judicial
3d ed
2013
under Rule
42 a
not required by the rule to
weigh the saving of time and
any inconvenience
delay or
Id
Perkins
1120
NW
Coie LLP
Portland
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
common
allocation
of public park resources
employment
at
499 500
discrimination in the
Courts have
WL
2602 2012
Here
fact
The
same
legal
2012
WL
TMI
outcomes,
consolidation
the
civil
rights actions
not prejudice
E D NY Apr
13
avoid
F 3d
at
the
issues in that action
duplication
any party
answer just
last
cases
In
week
IN SUPPORT
OF
For instance in
1983
Ill
brought
by
the
Eg Anderson v
Lynch
Id
separate prisoners
Spizziota
v DeMarco No 11
It
involve
common
issues
of law and
sued the same defendants
would
certainly
for the
same sex
In both cases two
couples
streamline and
of effort, and prevent conflicting
are
consolidated
the Geiger action
the plaintiffs
these actions
if
their
have been
LEGAL28777991.2
racial discrimination in
10 2012
complaint
just
16 days ago
Further
filed their
the
state official
and defendant Wuldruff has not yet filed an answer
litigated
or adjudicated
proceed on the same schedule in one consolidated
MEMORANDUM
23 2012
because
724
two months ago amended
filed their
similar constitutional
ND
491
from improper prison conditions
freedom to marry in Oregon
proceedings,
same or
consolidation
F RD
park district and one of the parties opposed consolidation
appropriate
Litigation 193
will
just
To date no
easily
is
for
one of the actions also asserted a claim for
claims arising from substantially similar facts
pretrial
defendants
alleging the
in the Geiger and Rummel actions have
seek the same relief
complaint
despite that
12 ED N Y Jan
consolidation
plaintiffs
economize
1268346
1429211
two actions both charging
also consolidated
alleging similar violations arising
No 11 5663
Chicago Park Dist 98
sua sponte consolidated
court
defendants are often appropriate
Midwest Community Council Inc
district
brought by separate plaintiffs
Civil rights cases
violations against
Thus
the
two
actions
can
proceeding
Perkins
1120
NW
Coie LLP
Portland
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
CONCLUSION
For these reasons plaintiffs Paul
Rummell
Tanner and Basic Rights Education Fund
Benjamin
West
Lisa Chickadonz Christine
Court consolidate
respectfully request that the
the
Geiger and Rummel actions
DATED
R Johnson
R
December 20 2013
s Thomas
Thomas
Kristina
J Holm OSB No
112607

MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Perkins Coie LLP
Telephone
503.727.2000
Jennifer Middleton
OSB No
071510

Johnson Johnson
Telephone
Cooperating
ACLU
on
attorneys
Foundation
Kevin Daz
ACLU
PC
Schaller
541.683.2506
of
OSB No
Foundation
of
behalf
of the
Oregon Inc
970480
Oregon Inc
KDiaz aclu ororg

Telephone
503.227.6928
Rose Saxe
RSaxe aclu org

Telephone
Amanda
212.549.2627
Goad
AGoad aclu org

Telephone
American
213.977.5244
Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
Rummell West

Education
Fund
MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT
LEGAL28777991.2
OF
pending
Perkins
1120
NW
Coie LLP
Portland
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Moon Samantha
From
info ord uscourts gov
Sent
Friday December
To
nobody
Subject
Activity
in
Support
This
this
is
e mail message
an automatic
e mail because
the mail
box
and
attorneys of record
all
documents
all
other users
viewing
However
To
1 16 PM
613 cv 01834 MC Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Memorandum
in
Motion
by
generated
parties in a case
the
CM ECF system Please
DO NOT RESPOND
Judicial Conference
including
to
of the United
States policy permits
pro se litigants to receive one free electronic copy of
receipt is required by law or directed by the filer
PACER
avoid later charges download a copy of each document during this
document
the referenced
if
Case
of
USERS
electronically if
filed
apply to
2013
unattended
is
NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS
20
ord uscourts gov
is
access fees
first
a transcript the free copy and 30 page limit do not
apply
U S District
District of
The
following
Court
Oregon
Filing
transaction
was
Thomas on 12 20 2013
entered by Johnson
at
1 16 PM PST
and
filed
on
12 20 2013
Case
Name
Geiger et al
Kitzhaber et al
Case Number
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Filer
Fund
Lisa Chickadonz
Paul
Rummell
Christine Tanner
Benjamin West
Document Number 12
Docket
Text
Memorandum
in Support of Motion to Consolidate
Filed
by Basic Rights Education Fund
Chickadonz Paul Rummell Christine Tanner Benjamin West

Consolidate
11
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Jennifer
Kristina
Lisa
s Motion
Johnson Thomas
Notice has been electronically
Middleton
Kevin Diaz
Related document
jmiddleton
jjlslaw
com
mailed
jjls
to
jjlslaw com
pjenkins
jjlslaw com
kdiaz aclu ororg
J Holm
KJHolm perkinscoie com DAnderson perkinscoie com

1
docketpor
perkinscoie
com
to
Lake James
Lea
Ann
Misha
Easton
AD
lake law works com
Perriguey
Isaak
jj
dorsayindianlaw
com
kellyd dorsayindianlaw com
adargis perkinscoie com docketpor
perkinscoie
com

Sheila
Potter
sheila
potter doj state orus samantha moon doj state or us
R Johnson TRJohnson
Thomas
6 13 cv 01834 MC
The
following
perkinscoie
com ADargis perkinscoie com
Notice will not be electronically
document
are associated
with
shiori iinuma doj state or us
this
mailed
to
transaction
Document description Main Document

Original filename Not Available
Electronic
STAMP
document Stamp
ordStamp ID 875559790
Date 12 202013 FileNumber 4608371
5ab8e61ba8e5fd96b853d3145b5b9263e3a4bf23ebea1213b7f230d7ce724fb64a116
ea877be85c50a384fc759b3802905333f5b77263bfd6fc3a3bfed20080b
docketpor
perkinscoie
com
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sheila
STEGGE
lake
Sent
12 20 2013 5 12 21
Subject
At 5 11pm
I
the
am growing
schedule
pessimistic
dutifully
Interesting certificate
of
Sheila
Deputy
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
of
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
about
nagged
law works
my chances
today
conferral
1880
FAX
410
971
673
but
on the
97201
673
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
Katharine
VON TER
PM
Justice
Suite
com
multco us
katevts
5000
for an answer from my boss and

it
may be Monday
consolidation
before
motion
have
the
Governor
an answer
on
From
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
12 20 2013 5 19 13
Subject
Re
It
The
about our conference
certificate
VON TER STEGGE
katevts
multco us
PM
Very generous
might be nice to confer with you
Lake James
Katharine
At 5 11pm
Yes
Sheila
is
briefly
accurately oblique
next
week
your convenience
at
about their
motion and a response
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On Dec
20
2013
at
am growing
schedule
Interesting
Sheila
5 12
of conferral
Portland
Phone
sheila
my chances
nagged today but
certicate
potter
for
doj state or us
an answer from
may be Monday
it
on the consolidation
before
my
I
wrote
boss and the Governor
on the
have an answer
motion
Potter
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
SW
Potter Sheila
pessimistic about
dutifully
Deputy Chief
1515
PM
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
12 21 2013 11 36 59
Subject
On
Attachments
192783257
Lake James
Sheila
H
AM
Point
Utah
Same Sex
Marriage Ruling pdf
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page 1
of
53
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
IN
CENTRAL
DIVISION
DEREK KITCHEN MOUDI SBEITY

KAREN ARCHER KATE CALL LAURIE
WOOD and KODY PARTRIDGE
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiffs
vs
GARY
and
R HERBERT
SHERRIE
JOHN
SWALLOW
Case
No 2 13 cv 217
SWENSEN
Defendants
The
Plaintiffs
in this
lawsuit are three gay and lesbian couples
currently unable to do so because
Plaintiffs
the Utah Constitution prohibits
who
same sex
argue that this prohibition infringes their rights to due process
its
laws and maintains
its
citizens
The
Both
Amendment
that
parties
state
of the United
States Constitution
wish to marry but are
marriage
The
The
State of Utah defends
has the right to define marriage according
to the judgment of
have submitted motions for summary judgment
court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has traditionally been the province
of the states and remains so today
But any regulation
adopted by a state whether related
marriage or any other interest must comply with the Constitution of the United States
the court must address in this case is therefore not
question
of whether Utahs
who
to
The issue
should define marriage but the narrow
current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution
Case
Few
especially
popular
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
questions are as politically
true
where
this
with such action
issue
But the
whether Utahs laws were the
is
It
of
Constitution itself
its
The
by the widest or smallest of margins
has taken
12 20 13 Page 2
democratic
only under exceptional
legal
result
Filed
in the current climate
charged
as here the state electorate
referendum on
interferes
Document 90
of
53
This observation
is
action to participate
circumstances
that
in
a court
issues presented in this lawsuit do not depend on
legislature
question
and on the interpretation of
that
or a referendum or whether
presented here depends
document contained
in
the laws passed
instead on the
binding precedent
samesex
from the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Applying the law as
it
is
required to
marriage conflicts with the United
do
States
the court holds that Utahs
Constitutions guarantees
due process under the law The States current laws deny
fundamental
right
rational reason
to marry
and
Accordingly
in so
doing demean
its
prohibition on
of equal protection
gay and lesbian
the dignity of these
citizens
same sex
and
their
couples for no
the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional
BACKGROUND
I
The
Plaintiffs
The
three couples in this lawsuit either desire to be married in Utah or are already legally
married elsewhere and wish to have
below the relevant
facts
from the
their
marriage recognized
affidavits that
in
Utah
The
court summarizes
the couples filed in support of their Motion for
Summary Judgment
Derek Kitchen
Derek Kitchen
in political
science
is
and Moudi Sbeity
twenty five year old man who was
from the University of Utah
Moudi
raised in Utah and obtained a
BA
Sbeity is also twenty five years old and
Case
was born
in
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Houston Texas He grew up
in
Lebanon
Filed
12 20 13 Page 3
but left that country
in
of
2006 during the
war between Lebanon and Israel Moudi came to Logan Utah where he received a
He
economics from Utah State University
economics
at
Derek
the University of
testifies
is
currently enrolled
in a Masters
publicly to his friends and family for several years while he struggled
also
Moudis mother took him
sixteen
psychiatrist
found
knew he was gay when he was young and came
a psychiatrist
told her that there was nothing
easier to accept
it
to
members Moudi
that
he might expose his mother
to
wrong with Moudi
he was careful about
months
the two
in
hummus muhammara
Bistro
Having maintained
to
whom
moved
2009 and
in
define his identity
when he was
telling
but the
Moudis mother
After that visit
his other friends and family
he told because he was concerned
in love shortly after meeting
together in Salt Lake City
business called Laziz that they jointly started
such as
to
After
Derek and Moudi run a
Laziz produces and sells Middle Eastern spreads
and toum to Utah businesses
like
Harmons
and the Avenues
a committed relationship for over four years Derek and
Moudi
desire
marry each other They were denied a marriage license from the Salt Lake County Clerks
office in
March 2013
Karen Archer and Kate Call
Karen Archer was born
Colorado
She received a
that
ridicule
Derek and Moudi met each other
dating for eighteen
in
he did not come out
that
out to his mother
Moudis identity and Moudi began
testifies
program
in
because she thought he was confused
fell
Moudi
BS
Utah
he knew he was gay from a young age but
that
53
in
Maryland in 1946 but spent most of her
BA and
an
MD
from the University of Texas
life
in
after
Boulder
which she
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
completed her residency
doctor
until
number
in
2001 when
Document 90
OB GYN
the Pennsylvania
at
she retired after developing
of hardships due to her sexual identity
twenty six years old but her parents believed
never accepted
this
school class of
350
who
of Karens
and she
Karen also
as dykes.
police
aspect
recalls
testifies
that
12 20 13 Page 4
53
of
She worked as a
State University
two serious illnesses Karen experienced a
Karen came out
that
identity
that
Filed
to
her parents
her sexual orientation
Karen was one of
thirteen
when
was an
she
abnormality and
women
in
a medical
her male classmates often referred to the female students
she was once
present at a gay bar
when
it
was
raided by the
assaulted the bar patrons with their batons
Kate Call
is sixty
and Mexico where
years old and spent her earliest years in Wisconsin
her parents were mission presidents for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints
she
was
eight
years
old Kate moved
Brigham Young University
college she dated several
more
begin to feel a
to
Provo Utah where
Kate received her
men
and was even engaged
intimate connection
if
in
twice
Kates
She wrote a
consent
sad and puzzled
letter
sharing these feelings
faxed Kates message
at first
to
in
1974
When
as a professor at
While she was
Although she hoped
that
in
she would
she committed herself to marriage she broke off both
she was a lesbian a feeling that continued
Argentina
her father worked
BA from BYU
engagements because she never developed any physical
realize that
was
attraction
to
to develop while she
to
Kate began
her fiancs
was
her mission president
church authorities and her parents
to
serving a mission
who
Kates
without
family was
but ultimately told her that they loved her unconditionally
During her professional
life
sheep ranch in San Juan County and
seasonally for the National
Kate owned a number of businesses
moved
Park Service and
there with
D found
4
In
her partner at the
2000
she bought a
time Kate worked
a job at the Youth Detention
facility
in
Case
Blanding
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
But when rumors surfaced
move away from
Kates
someone from D.
sighting to D. s
work saw
boss and
her supervisor
mentors
Kate and
the ranch
Kate
testifies
fired
needed
D moved
that
D was
Filed
12 20 13 Page 5
her job
new
While Kate was helping
trailer
Several weeks later Kates
been pressured by D.
faced and Kate eventually moved
to
split
up as a
result
go
but she surmises
let
of her supervisors
now
lives
first
in Wallsburg
met
in
forced to sell
challenges they had
of the difficult
Moab
Karen and Kate met online through a dating website and were immediately
each other when they
D move
also told her that
boss who was one
to
supervisor
back to the Wasatch Front and Kate was eventually
53
That person reported the
Kate never found out why she was
she and
of
a lesbian D. s boss told her that she needed
Kates vehicle at D. s
D was
may have
that
she wished to keep
ranch if
her services were no longer
that
Document 90
person
Karen moved from Colorado
The two are both concerned
about how they
attracted
Utah and
to
to
the couple
support each other in
will
samesex
the event
Karens
that
one of them passes
illness
Karen has had
union in the past
was
with
them While
away
difficult
Before meeting
partnered
to
a consideration
that is
especially
urgent in light of
experiences with the legal aspects
Kate Karen had two
woman named Diana
partners
who
of protecting
passed
away
while she
Karen had to pay an attorney
approximately one thousand dollars to draw up a large number of legal documents
to guarantee
certain rights emergency contacts
and financial
decisions medical
in
rights power of attorney for medical
directives living wills insurance beneficiaries and last wills and testaments
these documents
Despite
visitation
Karen was unable
to
receive Dianas
military pension
when Diana
2005
Karen and Kate have drawn up similar
legal
papers but they are concerned
that
these
died
Case
papers
may be
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
subject to challenges
In an attempt to protect
courthouse
Document 90
Filed
because they are not legally recognized
Because of the cost of the plane tickets the couple was not able
the pragmatism
security
they could
of their Iowa wedding
for their
marriage performed in
Laurie
Wood
Laurie
Fork
received a
relationship
when
of
53
as a couple in
themselves further Karen and Kate flew to Iowa to be
family attend and the pair had their suitcases by their side
that
12 20 13 Page 6
wed
to
Utah
in a city
have friends and
they said I do.
Kate
testifies
was born out of the necessity of providing whatever
Under current law Utah does not recognize
their
Iowa
Wood
and Kody Partridge
has lived in Utah since she was three years old
BA from the University
She spent over eleven years teaching
in
employed by Utah Valley University
of
Utah and
received
She grew up
her Masters
in
American
degree from
the public school system in Utah County and is
BYU
now
She teaches undergraduate courses as an Associate
Professor of English in the English and Literature Department and also works as the Concurrent
Enrollment Coordinator supervising
schools across Utah
County
high school
in
2006
Laurie
was
teacher because she believed
was
hired at
or authentic
UVU
in
Kody
co founded
attend
BYU
not open about
her relationships
is
teach as
men
until
in
the
non profit Womens
UVU
adjuncts in high
Redrock Music
her sexual identity while she
she would be fired
While she dated
Partridge
who
She has served on the Board of Directors for the American Civil
Liberties Union for fifteen years and
Festival
instructors
if
she said anything
high school
she began dating
was
a public school
She came out when she
and college she never
felt
women
fortyseven years old and moved to Utah from Montana
She received her
BA
in
Spanish and humanities and
comfortable
later
in
1984 to
obtained a Masters
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
degree in English
School in
She earned a teaching
Lake County
Salt
came
her family eventually
identity at
work because
Butler Kody
recalls
teacher and coach
became aware
teaching
was
that
at
with the Utah
AIDS
Wendy Weaver was
who
a Utah public school
was
by a
fired
in the English department
benefits for the
Foundation
samesex
at
Rowland
fell
in
love in
Habitat
2010
for
committed relationship
They wish
County Clerks office
in
to
marry
and
be open about her
Ms
news
Systems as a
at
Weaver was
Kody
result
Kody
also
of her
applied and
Hall St Marks a private
members Kody
and has traveled with her students to
Kody met and
Butler Middle
because she was a lesbian
partners of its faculty
homes with
53
While she was teaching
often in the
New
volunteers
Orleans four times
Humanity
Besides the fact that they are both English
the two share an interest in books and gardening
Salt Lake
she could
feel
Given these concerns
partner
life
at
of
a lesbian while she was in college
She did not
her identity
the story of
Katrina to help build
Laurie and
their
accept
1998 and began teaching
in
was
she
12 20 13 Page 7
of the worry that her job would be at risk
for a position
Hurricane
teachers
to
that
Filed
the pension she was building in Utah Retirement
school that provides
after
that
certificate
She realized
career could not be inherited
accepted
Document 90
and have the same long term goals for
but were denied a marriage license from the
March 2013
samesex
II
History of
Amendment
The Utah laws
unions and an
laws
in
that
are at issue in this lawsuit include two statutory prohibitions on
amendment
to
the Utah Constitution
the context of the ongoing
In
1977
national
the Utah legislature
marriages between persons of the
debate
amended
same
The
court discusses
surrounding
Section
30 1 2
same sex
of the Utah
the history of these
marriage
Code
to state
sex were prohibited and declared void.
In
that
2004
the
Case
Utah
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
legislature
30 1 4.1
passed Section
It
is
Filed
Code
of the Utah
the policy of this state to recognize
union of a
Document 90
man and
woman
as provided
Except for the relationship
recognized
pursuant
to this
this state
any
duties that are substantially equivalent
to
man
and
woman
as marriage only the legal
chapter
of marriage between a
chapter
53
of
which provides
in this
or give legal effect to any law creating
12 20 13 Page 8
man
and a
woman
will not recognize enforce

status rights benefits or
legal
those provided
under Utah law
to
because they are married
In the 2004 General Session the Utah legislature also passed a Joint Resolution
Marriage which directed the Lieutenant
to
the Utah Constitution to the voters of
submit the following proposed amendment
Utah
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a
No
Laws 2004
other domestic
H JR 25
union however denominated
These developments were influenced
Supreme Court found
1Unless
was
that
recognized
2004
as
Amendment
The language in Amendment
which went into
Baehr
refer to
Lewin 852
effect
in this
3 passed
3 was then
on January
nationally
P 2d 44 59
Amendment 3
as a
Amendment
the State of Hawaiis refusal to grant
will
amendment and
29
woman
legal effect
by a number of events occurring
discriminatory
noted otherwise the court
both the Utah constitutional
on November
66 of the voters
amended to the Utah Constitution as Article
couples marriage licenses
may be
and a
The proposed amendment which became known
with the support of approximately
the Hawaii
man
the same or substantially equivalent
placed on the ballot for the general election
1993
to
marriage or given
was
Governor
on
2005.1
In
samesex
Haw 1993 2
opinion to
the Utah statutory provisions that prohibit
mean
samesex
marriage
2The Hawaii Supreme Court remanded the case

could
show
Baehr 852
that
P 2d
its
at
marriage statute
68
The
trial
was
to
the
trial
court to determine
if
the state
narrowly drawn to further compelling state interests
court ruled that the government
failed to
make
this
showing
Case
And
in
1999
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Two
samesex
couples
Amendment
Texas 539
U S 558 578
protected
the sexual relations
2003
Second
Pub
Health 798
2003
a constitutional
decades the
NE2d 941 948
amendment
government
samesex
courts
Miike
decision
the Hawaii
legislature
in
has also been involved
law
1996
reversed course and legalized
3The Vermont
The
legislature
4Six states have
Vermont
couples to
same sex
Lawrence
marry Goodridge
in
marriage4
same sex
DOMA
or
unions
same sex
the
21 1996 Pub
694235
22
at
Haw
marriage debate
same sex
marriage
Same sex
of
In
same sex
110 Stat 2419
3 1996
Dec
passed
to refuse to
states
L 104 199
Cir Ct
Utah
like
During the past two
which allowed
Act of Sept
complied with
amendment
The
that
trial
granted
Recently the
couples began marrying
permitted
this
mandate by creating a new
samesex
marriage through
legalized
samesex
New
marriage through
Jersey
legal status
called
went
statute that
states
Maine Maryland Washington
have legalized
Same sex
court decisions
New Mexico
Delaware Hawaii Illinois Minnesota
and three
2009
Connecticut Iowa Massachusetts

marriage legislation
its
2013
legislature later
into effect on September
Island
WL
Vt
Clause of the
Process
the ability to reserve marriage for opposite sex couples
legislature
union.
amend
and lesbians
rendered moot after Hawaii passed a constitutional
Hawaii on December
a civil
Due
to
marriages granted in other states and barred federal recognition
No 91 1394
was
required to offer all
Mass 2003
passed the Defense of Marriage Act
samesex
53
A2d 864 886 87
decision
men
of gay
or other legislation to prohibit
unions for the purposes of federal
Baehr
Utahs
every other state has either legalized
federal
1996 Congress
recognize
Vermont 744
was
of
the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the
Massachusetts Constitution protected the right of
Since
12 20 13 Page 9
First the United States Supreme Court ruled that the
Fourteenth
of
Baker
court cases in 2003 immediately preceded
Constitution
Dept
Filed
the Vermont Supreme Court held that the State of Vermont
the benefits of marriage to
1999
Document 90
samesex
eight states
New
California
have passed
Hampshire
marriage through
a popular
marriage is also legal in Washington
same sex
New York Rhode
DC
vote
Case
In
2013
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
the Supreme Court held that Section 3 of
United States 133
Ct 2675
The Supreme Court
Proposition
also considered
Schwarzenegger
issue
was
presented
704
F Supp
8 was unconstitutional
appealed
to
53
Windsor
P 3d
384
2d
a federal district
Perry
Cal
453
to
2008
prohibit
judge determined
California
samesex
that
Proposition
and due process under the United States Constitution
921
N D Cal 2010
1003
v Brown
F3d
671
Applying
different
holding that
1052 1095
9th Cir
2012
This
the Supreme Court but the Court did not address the merits of the question
Hollingsworth
Perry 133
the proponents of Proposition
Ct 2652
2668
8 did not have standing
California officials refused to defend the
law
to
2013
Id
Instead
appeal Judge
Id Consequently
Ninth Circuits opinion for lack of jurisdiction
A number
the Supreme Court left unanswered in the California case
the Court found that
Walkers
decision
after
the Supreme Court vacated
the
of lawsuits including the suit
currently pending before this court have been filed across the country
that
of
an appeal from a case involving Californias
reasoning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Walkers
Proposition
10
was unconstitutional
which amended Californias Constitution
the guarantees of equal protection
12 20 13 Page
2013
The Honorable Vaughn Walker
marriage
DOMA
marriage In re Marriage Cases 183
voters passed Proposition
Perry
2696
Filed
After the California Supreme Court held that the California Constitution
samesex
recognized
violated
Document 90
to
address the question
The court turns
to that
question
now
5As discussed below Section 3 defined marriage as the union between a man and a
woman
for purposes of federal
law
allows states to refuse to recognize
U SC
The
Court did not consider a challenge to Section
samesex
marriages validly performed in other states
1738C
10
which
See 28
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
11
of
53
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
The
fact
court grants
and the movant
view
summary judgment when
is entitled to
the evidence and
nonmoving
party.
judgment as a matter of law.
make s
N Natural
there is no genuine dispute as to any material
all
Gas
Fed
R Civ P 56 a
The
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable
Co v
Nash
Oil
Gas Inc
526
F3d 626
court
to the
10th Cir
629
2008
II
Effect of the
The
decision
Supreme Courts
man
and one
2012 A
the Fifth
woman
Windsor
DOMA
2013
In
Windsor
Amendment
as husband and wife for the purposes of federal
parties
of the United
State focuses on the portions
Courts acknowledgment
Id
at
2692
Windsor 133
States Constitution
argue that the reasoning
of the Windsor
the Court considered
which defined marriage as the legal union between
majority of the Court found that this statute was unconstitutional
Both
relation.
S Ct 2675
Windsor 133
the constitutionality of Section 3 of
one
in United States
court begins its analysis by determining the effect of the Supreme Courts recent
United States
in
Decision
in
law 1
U SC
because
S Ct
at
Windsor requires judgment in
favor
quoting
of the States historic and essential authority to define the marital
see also
Sosna
stand for the proposition that
federal governments
The
as well as the
id
at
2691
ubject
constitutional
to
guarantees
of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive
the States.
violated
2696
their
opinion that emphasize federalism
it
Iowa 419
DOMA
was
U S 393 404
1975
unconstitutional
The
because the
province
State interprets
statute
regulation
Windsor
to
departed from the
history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.
11
of
Id
at
Case
2692
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Just as the federal
same sex
decision
marriage Utah
not to recognize
individual
state
dignity as that of a
The
not base
Due
at
asserts that
samesex
Fifth
DOMA
Amendment
Amendment
second
tier
lawful marriage.
because the
statute
Id
at
to recognize
it
is
up
place
Id
2694
at
each
status
and
its
Court did
holding in the
right to
liberty
Id
of the liberty of the person protected by the
The Court found
d same sex
to
2689
protects an individuals
that
DOMA
violated
the Fifth
couples in an unstable position of being in a
The
Plaintiffs
prohibits the federal government
and opposite sex couples the Fourteenth Amendment
this
believes that
marriage, a differentiation that demean ed the couple
Amendment
53
of
cannot intrude upon a states
Instead the Court grounded
as a deprivation
of the Constitution.
choices the Constitution protects[.]
the Fifth
in
Amendment which
unconstitutional
is
12
a states decision
words Utah
In other
on the Tenth Amendment
decision
disregard
to
the federal government
marriage
12 20 13 Page
disagree with this interpretation and point out that the Windsor
Process Clause of the Fifth
2695
cannot choose
Filed
two persons of the same sex may occupy the same
man and woman
Plaintiffs
its
government
decide whether
to
Document 90
from
whose moral and
sexual
argue that for the same reasons
differentiating
between
prohibits state governments
samesex
from making
distinction
Both
individual
ability
parties
rights
present compelling arguments and the protection
are both weighty concerns
of the federal government
Windsor
these interests were allied against the
to disregard a state law that protected
these interests directly oppose each other
6The Tenth Amendment
In
of states rights and
makes
The Windsor
explicit
The powers not delegated to the United
Here
court did not resolve this conflict in the
the division between
States by the Constitution
States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
12
individual rights
power
federal and state

nor prohibited by
U S Const
amend
it
to the
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
context of state law prohibitions of
The
dissenting
may continue
considered
See
eg
same sex
Court does not have before
to utilize
US 1
See id
1967
balancing
Amendment
equally
Constitutions protection
dispositive whether
or strike
down a
Honorable
ruling in
state
law
this
13
of
53
CJ
Roberts
whether the States
But the Supreme Court has
of the individual
protection
the states right to regulate marriage
requires that individual
regulate marriage is limited by the Fourteenth
The
2696
over states rights where these two interests are in conflict
to
at
the distinct question
it
to equal protection
right
the Court has held that the Fourteenth
power
12 20 13 Page
involve the tension between these two values in other cases
that
Virginia 388
against the individuals
marriage
Filed
the traditional definition of marriage.
analogous questions
Loving
Document 90
See id
at
In these cases
rights
take precedence
holding that a states
Amendment
rights
of gay and lesbian citizens is
requires a court to respect a state
as the Plaintiffs ask the court to do here
Antonin Scalia recognized
law
that this result
was the
In
logical
law
as in Windsor
his dissenting
opinion the
outcome of the Courts
Windsor
In
my
opinion however the view
same sex
marriage is indicated
that this
Court will take of state prohibition of
beyond mistaking by todays opinion
As
have
samesex
said the
real
rationale
of todays
desire to harm couples in
inevitable
to reach
the
same
opinion
same sex
is that
marriages
DOMA
How
is
easy
motivated
it
by bare
is indeed
how
with regard to state laws denying
conclusion
couples marital status
133
S Ct
Scalias
at
2709
citations
interpretation
and
internal
of Windsor
quotation
and finds
that
marks omitted
the important federalism concerns at issue here
are nevertheless insufficient to save a state law prohibition
to
The court agrees with Justice
under the law
13
that
denies the Plaintiffs their rights
Case
III
Baker
In
was
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Nelson
Is
Document 90
No Longer
Minn 1971 The
to
brought
allow them
to
a lawsuit in
marry Baker
Minnesota Supreme Court found
opposite sex couples did not violate
either
U S 810 810
Utah argues
that
Id
that
Nelson 191
Minnesotas
at
186 87 On
Here
the Courts
summary dismissal
otherwise.
summary dismissal
Hicks
in
several doctrinal developments
summary dismissal
in
Baker has
Clause or the
Boren 429
op
U S 190 197
1976
little
Frontiero
but also before the Court recognized
it
Moreover Baker was
was unconstitutional
their
Due
Process
appeal the United States Supreme
federal question.
Baker
is
Baker
binding on this court and that
federal question
that
U S 332 344
1975
men
and lesbians demonstrate
that
effect
sex is a quasi suspect
Richardson 411
today
that
the
Not only was
see Craig
classification
U S 677 688
1973
plurality
the Constitution protects individuals from
See
Romer
Evans 517
U S 620 635 36
decided before the Supreme Court held in Lawrence
for a state to demean
But
not binding when doctrinal
any precedential
if
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
1996
of marriage to
in the Courts analysis of both the Equal Protection
Baker decided before the Supreme Court held
is
Miranda 422
Clause and the Due Process Clause as they apply to gay
Courts
Minnesota
that
1972
the Supreme Court has stated that a
indicate
53
of
N W 2d 185 187
restriction
the present lawsuit should therefore be dismissed for lack of a substantial
developments
14
court arguing
state
Court summarily dismissed the case for want of a substantial
Nelson 409
12 20 13 Page
Controlling Precedent
1971 two men from Minnesota
constitutionally required
Filed
the existence
destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.
14
of gay
539
men
Texas
that
and lesbians or control
U S 558 578
2003
As
Case
discussed
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
below
Document 90
the Supreme Courts decision in Lawrence
formerly cite as a reason to prohibit
could
The
number
12 20 13 Page
removes a
of the issues in this lawsuit
Human Servs
682
that
do not presume
911
F Supp
2d
F3d 1 8
to rest
of
Baker
2012
D Nev
53
that states
in these cases and others a
as controlling precedent and therefore precludes
eg
Massachusetts
right to
2012
of
justification
US
samesex
Dept
s the
holding that Baker limit
on a constitutional
996 1002 03
claim Other
consideration
1st Cir
See
15
marriage
State points out that despite the doctrinal developments
consideration
2010
samesex
of courts have found that Baker survives
protection
Filed
of Health
arguments to ones
marriage. Sevcik
ruling that Baker barred the plaintiffs
Sandoval
equal
courts disagree and have decided substantially similar issues without
See
eg
Perry
Schwarzenegger
ruling that Californias prohibition of
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
samesex
704
F Supp
marriage violated
Amendment
N D Cal
2d 921
the
Due
Process and
In any event all of these cases were
decided before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Windsor
As
discussed
presented here but
above
its
reasoning
doctrinal development
number
of lawsuits
prohibit
samesex
definitions affecting
when
Justice
nevertheless highly relevant
and
is
Court foresaw that
therefore a significant
its
ruling would precede
fact that
was
noted by two dissenting
justices
states
ability to
The Honorable
the Court may in the future have to resolve challenges to state marriage
same sex
Scalia even
does not answer the question
and lower federal courts raising the question of a
marriage a
that
is
Importantly the Windsor
in state
John Roberts wrote
And
the Courts decision in Windsor
couples.
Windsor 133
recommended how
presented with the question that is
this
now
S Ct at
2697
court should interpret
before it
15
I do not
mean
Roberts
CJ dissenting
the Windsor
to
decision
suggest disagreement
Case
that
them
is
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
lower federal courts and
is state
that
samesex
while the Court declined
petitioners
lacked standing
outright for lack of a substantial
Filed
12 20 13 Page
courts can distinguish todays
denial of marital status to
also notable
because the
state
Document 90
to
to
Id
couples.
at
when
case
2709
that
of federal
law
As a
federal question
Nelson
address the merits of the question
IV
Amendment
The
is
See 133
S Ct 2652 2013
by the
state
3 Violates the Plaintiffs
ability to
government
protect
As
regulate and define marriage
discussed
above
Windsor 133
does not infringe the constitutional
incidents
Due
The
guarantees
to
to
the States right to
counter that what is really at issue
Plaintiffs
rights
from unreasonable interference
the two important
Ct
at
2693
it
of its citizens
must nevertheless do so
See id
may vary from
a result the courts
at
state
2692
to state
a determination
a way
noting that the
but are
realm
still
Instead
of what individual rights are protected
16
in
to
role is not to define marriage an
exercise that would be improper given the states primary authority in this
analysis is restricted
question
While Utah exercises the unquestioned authority
rights
As
is
the parties have defined
benefits and obligations of marriage
subject to constitutional
courts
there is no longer
Process Rights
his or her fundamental
principles that are in tension in this matter
that
that
Given the
presented here
State of Utah contends that what is at stake in this lawsuit
an individuals
It
Hollingsworth
no longer controlling precedent and the court proceeds
define marriage free from federal interference
is
J dissenting
the issue currently before the court in this lawsuit presents a substantial
result Baker
53
pursue the appeal the Court did not dismiss the case
Supreme Courts disposition of both Windsor and Perry the court finds
any doubt
of
the issue before
Scalia
reach the merits in Perry
16
the
by the
Case
Constitution
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
The
Document 90
court must then decide whether
12 20 13 Page
of
53
the States definition and regulation
of
Filed
17
marriage impermissibly infringes those rights
The
rights
Constitution guarantees
that all
whom
vest in every person over
the Constitution has authority
important an individuals fundamental
W Va
outcome of no elections.
When
the Constitution was first
wrenching
experience
which holds No State
shall
rights
State
Bd
of
may not be submitted
in
the Civil
make
War
protected
Pa v
Brandeis
Thus
all
U S 624 638
fundamental
U S 833 846
shall
shall
the Bill
of
After the
Amendment
any State deprive any person of life
liberty
XIV
The Supreme Court has held
applies to matters of substantive
rights
comprised within the term
quoting
Whitney
Due
law as well as
liberty
to
are
Planned Parenthood
California 274
the
that
of
U S 357 373
Se
1927
J concurring
The most
familiar of an individuals
substantive
liberties
are those recognized
of Rights and the Supreme Court has held that the
Due
Amendment
of Rights against the States
in
abridge the privileges and
from invasion by the States.
1992
1943
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
Amendment
by the Federal constitution
Casey 505
law
U S Const amend
Process Clause of the Fourteenth
matters of procedure
vote they depend on the
the people adopted the Fourteenth
or enforce any law which
or property without due process of
of the laws.
Barnette 319
to
because they are so
from certain actions of the federal government
immunities of citizens of the United States nor
protection
Educ
and
These
rights
ratified these rights were specifically articulated
Rights and protected an individual
nations
have certain fundamental
citizens
incorporates
Louisiana 391
most portions of the
U S 145 147 48
1968
Bill
discussing
17
by the
Bill
incorporation
See
eg
Duncan
of certain rights from the
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
2010
Pennsylvania
Casey
the Supreme Court recognized
the Honorable
John Marshall Harlan
unenumerated
rights
found
full
T he
in
liberty
in
a freedom
judgment must
grounds quoted
The
of
Southeastern
Process Clause also protects a
made by
first
number
of
by the State
Due
is
Clause cannot be
Process
guarantees elsewhere
not a series of isolated points
of property the freedom
of speech press and
and bear arms the freedom from unreasonable searches

is
It
all
rational
substantial
continuum which broadly speaking

arbitrary
impositions and purposeless
that certain interests
require particularly careful scrutiny
in
U S 497 543
Casey 505
1961
US
at
Harlan
J dissenting
of the
from dismissal on
right to
marry is an example of a fundamental
The Supreme Court
importance
important relation in life
would be neither
In
nor progress.
Nebraska the Court recognized
that
that
125
the right to
a central part of the liberty protected by the
Right
not mentioned
liberty
explicitly
under the Due
marriage as the most
of the family and society without which
U S 190 205 211

marry
Due
18
establish a
Process
in
the right to marry is of
Hill the Court characterized
and as the foundation
civilization
right that is
by the guarantee of
has long emphasized
Maynard
jurisdictional
848 49
Supreme Court Cases Protecting Marriage as a Fundamental
Process Clause
is
53
S Ct 3020
Chicago 130
the authority of an argument
the text of the Constitution but is nevertheless protected
fundamental
of
needs asserted to justify their abridgement
Ullman 367
on
from
18
and which also recognizes what a reasonable and sensitive
restraints
Due
This liberty
the Constitution
and seizures and so
Poe
the
City of
Planned Parenthood
In
guaranteed by the
out in terms of the taking
includes
12 20 13 Page
or limited by the precise terms of the specific
religion the right to keep
state
II that
from unreasonable invasion
scope of the
provided
pricked
Amendment
the Second
incorporating
Filed
Amendments McDonald
First Fourth Fifth and Sixth
3050
Document 90
Clause
1888
In
home and
262
Meyer
there
bring up children
U S 390 399
1923
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
And
in
civil
rights of man.
Skinner
Oklahoma
316
Document 90
ex rel Williamson
U S 535 541
Filed
12 20 13 Page
19
53
of
the Court ruled that marriage is one of the basic
1942
In more recent cases the Court has held that the right to marry implicates additional
are protected by the Fourteenth
rights that
Griswold
Connecticut
The
We
better
is
parties older than our school system
or for
worse
an association
U S 479 486
among
hopefully enduring
Marriage
519
1965 And
rights this
Bd
of
Educ
in
ML B v SL J
a coming together for
in
1996
citation
1977
is
is clear that
rights
usurpation disregard or
held that a person must be free to
1974
This
interference
among
19
make
See
eg
personal
Cleveland
Court has long recognized
matters of marriage and family life
it
omitted
is
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Carey
U S 678 684 85
in our society,
against the States unwarranted
U S 632 639 40
in
Yet
our prior decisions
Court has ranked of basic importance
has consistently
LaFleur 414
in
living
the Court described marriage as an
to marriage without unjustified government
freedom of personal choice
431
right
marriage family life and the upbringing of children are
Amendment
U S 102 116
The Supreme Court
related
is
promotes a way of life not causes a harmony
that
sheltered by the Fourteenth
decisions
prohibited the
and intimate to the degree of being sacred
faiths a bilateral loyalty not commercial or social projects
right Choices about
associational
disrespect.
that
of Rights
older than our
an association for as noble a purpose as any involved
associational
law
in
Court observed
not political
381
the Courts decision
which the Court struck down a Connecticut
deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill
political
It
For instance
established that the right to marry is intertwined with an individuals
use of contraceptives
of privacy
in
Amendment
the decisions
one of the
liberties
that
protected
Population Servs
that
Intl
an individual may make
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
without unjustified government
procreation contraception
internal quotation
regulation
interference
12 20 13 Page
Filed
are personal decisions
relating
20
to marriage
family relationships and child rearing and education.
marks omitted Hodgson
Minnesota 497
marry must be
made.
the Court emphasized
individuals
on legitimate
predicated
the choice the individual has
U S 417 435
In Planned
state
a lifetime choices
in
Parenthood
central
of
own
concept
and of the mystery of human life

attributes
US
of personhood
at
protected
interracial
Southeastern
Pennsylvania
afforded
realm of liberty
to
to
an
marriage in Loving
1948
heart
meaning
may
are central
of liberty is
of the universe
of the State
and
right
its
relation to an
and association the Supreme Court has not hesitated
marriage whenever
to
such a law intrudes on an individuals
Most famously the Court struck down Virginias law against
Virginia 388
statute
7In
he
Beliefs about these matters could not define the
of marriage as a fundamental
laws pertaining
correctly decided
of existence of
autonomy
At the
were they formed under compulsion
rights to liberty privacy
Virginias anti miscegenation
strike
whom
851
Given the importance
state
to personal dignity and
the liberty protected
individuals
the
concerns other than disagreement with
the high degree of constitutional protection
the right to define ones
invalidate
But
personal choices about marriage and other intimate decisions
make
Casey 505
and
citations
1990
These matters involving the most intimate and personal choices a person
to
53
of
of constitutionally protected decisions such as where a person shall reside or
or she shall
Casey
Document 90
violated
Amendment
U S 1 12
1967
The
Court found that
both the Equal Protection
Id The
Clause and the
Court has since noted that Loving
even though mixedrace marriages had previously been
the California Supreme Court became
down an anti miscegenation
statute
Perez
20
Due
the
first
Sharp 198
illegal in
many
court in the twentieth
P 2d 17
Cal
1948
was
states7
century
see also
to
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
and moreover were
interracial
ratified Marriage is mentioned
to
it
be an aspect of
see also Perry
Court recognized
protected
that
In addition
Schwarzenegger
to
that
a Wisconsin
in
U S 374 375
at
a support order
Wis
were
Stat
unconstitutional
Loving 388
1978
The
mandated
245.10
impinge
at
1973
was
in
Casey 505
US
at
stood in stark contrast
in
Loving the
where
Redhail the Court
who had
compliance
that
children
was
that
were
permitted to
to
with any support
any children covered
become
by such
public charges.
Id
The Court found that while the State had a legitimate and
the statute was nevertheless
not closely tailored to effectuate
d on the
by the
the court should not grant
not likely thereafter
the welfare of children in Wisconsin
it
resident
that
was
doubt
marriage are unconstitutional
and could also show
were
was no
N D Cal 2010 T he
992
In Zablocki
any Wisconsin
statute
children
of Rights and
marry.
affecting
access to marriage
required
not then and
because
US
921
53
of
the time the
Bill
custody to obtain a court order before the resident
out of custody
interest in
unnecessarily
2d
Virginia.
21
laws the Supreme Court struck down
permission to marry unless the resident proved that he
obligation for his
Loving
F Supp
other state regulations
statute that
not currently in the residents
marry 434
704
the anti miscegenation
these laws infringe on an individuals
substantial
nowhere in the
race restrictions despite their historical prevalence
Supreme Court has held
quoting
interference
against state interference
of liberty and choice inherent in the right to
the concepts
considered
liberty
component of the Due Process Clause
substantive
to
12 20 13 Page
marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century but the Court
correct in finding
847 48
was
Filed
from government
not specifically protected
Amendment
Fourteenth
Document 90
right to
marry[.]
n5
21
Id
at
only those interests and
388 The
Court distinguished
the
Case
statute at
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
issue from reasonable state regulations
heightened
By
reaffirming the fundamental
prerequisites
that
character of the right to
which
do not
into the marital relationship
386 As
classification
determines
22
of
53
related to marriage that would not require any
relates in
marry we do
any way
to
the Honorable
significantly
may legitimately
interfere
who may lawfully
status is
mean
To
to
of or
the contrary
with decisions to enter
be imposed
opinion A
John Paul Stevens noted in his concurring
based on marital
not
the incidents
for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny
reasonable regulations
at
12 20 13 Page
review
suggest that every state regulation
Id
Filed
fundamentally different from a classification which
enter into the marriage relationship.
Id
at
403 04
Stevens
concurring
In Turner
Safley the Court struck down a Missouri regulation
from marrying unless the prison superintendent
1987
The Court
had a reduced
attributes
approved of the marriage
held that inmates retained their fundamental
expectation
of liberty in prison
Id
at
96
of marriage that prisoners could enjoy even if
right to
prohibited inmates
that
482
U S 78 99 100
marryeven though they
The Court emphasized the many
they were not able to have sexual
relations
First inmate marriages like others are expressions of emotional

public
commitment
marital relationship
spiritual
These elements are an important and

In
significance
addition
some
for
commitment of marriage
many
an exercise of religious
released by parole or commutation
formed
in
the expectation
that
they ultimately will be fully
benefits property
rights and other
wedlock
less
tangible
to
commitment
as well as an
will
be
consummated
the receipt of government
rights
eg
eg
benefits
These incidents of marriage
the marriage
faith
and therefore most inmate marriages are
marital status often is a precondition

Social Security
of the
therefore the
Third most inmates eventually
expression of personal dedication
aspect
religions recognize marriage as having
inmates and their spouses
may be
support and
significant
like
are unaffected
eg
tenancy by the entirety inheritance
legitimation of children
born out of
the religious and personal aspects of
by the
22
benefits
Finally
fact
of confinement
or the pursuit
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
of legitimate corrections
Id
at
Document 90
essential
that
the Constitution protects an individuals
The
right
dignity and
related
autonomy
While
marriage the Supreme Court has struck down several
burdened an individuals
mind
The
marry
ability
to
Application
of the Courts Jurisprudence
the Supreme Court has protected
that
in
Loving arose
in
states
to
because the
liberty is
signing
Plaintiffs
an illusion
a contract
the State for
are
The
still
the cases cited
3 does not abridge the
at liberty to
right to
these general observations
to prohibit
same sex
above
marriage
See Zablocki
marry is not simply the
sex
If
434
US
at
384
prior and subsequent decisions
importance
Plaintiffs
for all individuals.
fundamental
right to
right to
become
this
rights to
marry
purported
a married person by
marriages were planned and arranged by
these marriages would violate a persons right to marrybecause
arrangements would infringe an individuals
right
Like all fundamental
marrya person of the opposite sex But
with someone of the opposite
example
impermissibly
the Plaintiffs possess the fundamental
the context of racial discrimination
Amendment
that
Amendment 3
of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental
State asserts that
have the authority to regulate
regulations
ability
rights the right to marry vests in every American citizen
Although
marry as an
right to
to marriage are protected because
marry With
question of Utahs
State does not dispute nor could it
that
state
exercise the right to
the court turns to the specific
53
of
to marry is intertwined with the rights to privacy
and an individuals choices
they are integral to a persons
The
23
goals
part of the right to liberty
and intimate association
to
12 20 13 Page
95 96
These cases demonstrate
in
Filed
privacy
such
dignity and intimate association
persons choices about marriage implicate the heart of the right to liberty that is protected by
23
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Amendment
the Fourteenth
numerous associated
to
marry and
rights
See
Document 90
Casey 505
human
and
previous
their
recognition
and work opportunities
their
her position with the National
Moudi
that
sex is meaningless
sex The
For instance
partner did lose her job because
because he feared
if
dispute
In
1973
why
the Plaintiffs
she
was
may have been
this
Kates
let
go from
family never accepted
he remained cautious about openly discussing his sexuality
The
testimony supports their
Plaintiffs
characteristic
of their identities
these assertions would not have been accepted
the American Psychiatric
and
to
Laurie both worried that they
a lesbian and Kate
his mother might be ridiculed
ago
have not come to
Plaintiffs
Kody and
Statistical
Association
still
defined
lesbians in the past few decades a wealth
choice
of
DSM II
and leading
With the increased
new knowledge
upended these previous beliefs Today the State does not dispute the
24
by a court without
homosexuality as a mental
Manual of Mental Disorders
experts believed that homosexuality was simply a lifestyle
men and
the
The State accepts without
Park Service for the same reason Karens
testified that
disorder in the Diagnostic
of gay
why
they were open about their sexual identity
assertions that their sexual orientation is an inherent
Forty years
of the right
of their identity has often risked their family
jobs as English teachers
her identity and
manifestations
testimony that they cannot develop the type of intimate bond necessary
sustain a marriage with a person of the opposite
realization lightly
53
The States argument disregards these
the State fails to dispute any of the facts that demonstrate
contest the Plaintiffs
of
right
asserted right to marry someone of the opposite
would lose
851
24
of marriage that form the core justifications for
Constitution protects this fundamental
relationships
at
12 20 13 Page
because the State focuses on the outward
not the inner attributes
Moreover
US
Filed
visibility
about sexuality has
Plaintiffs
testimony that
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Case
they have
never
been able
to
Document 90
they desired to do
not allowed
The
to
so
Amendment
is
sex
choose a
meaningless as
if
same sex
of
53
therefore that
it
is
it
clear that
the Plaintiffs are
denies gay and lesbian citizens of Utah the ability
The
rights
prohibition
States
marriage partner renders their fundamental
the State recognized
if
their
the Plaintiffs will be forced to remain unmarried
exercise one of their constitutionally protected
right to
25
suggest that the Plaintiffs could change
to
Given these undisputed facts
to marry a partner of the same
of
effect
12 20 13 Page
develop feelings of deep intimacy for a person of the opposite sex
and the State presents no argument or evidence
identity if
Filed
the Plaintiffs
right to
right to
of the Plaintiffs
marry as
bear arms but not their right to buy
bullets
While admitting
argues that the courts
Plaintiffs
new
to
that its
prohibition of
characterization
of
same sex
marriage harms the Plaintiffs the State
Amendment 3
is
incorrect
are not qualified to enter into a marriage relationship
right not access to an existing right and
3 history and
marry a person of the same sex The court addresses
The
Plaintiffs
First the State contends
that
Are Qualified
samesex
to
1 the
for three reasons
2 the
tradition
Plaintiffs
are seeking a
have not recognized a
each of these arguments
in
right
turn
Marry
partners do not possess the qualifications to enter
into a marriage relationship and are therefore excluded from this right as a definitional matter
As
in other states the purposes of marriage in Utah include the state recognition and approval
choice to live with each other to remain committed to one another and to form a
a couples
household based on
partnership
Supp
2d
their
own
feelings
about one
another and
and support one another and any dependents.
921
961
N D Cal 2010
There
is
no dispute
25
to join in an economic
Perry
that
Schwarzenegger
704
the Plaintiffs are able to form a
of
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
committed relationship with one person
to
the exclusion
that
the Plaintiffs are capable of raising children
The
State even salutes
in
Oppn
at
46
t he
n7 Dkt 84
worthy
Filed
efforts
of
Nevertheless
of all others
within this framework
same sex
other The State points
to
the State maintains that
Supreme Court cases
relationship to procreation
Marriage
1942
See
eg
and procreation
Skinner
that
to
if
is
to
of
same sex
53
also no dispute
they choose
to
do
Defs.
so
Mem
couples are
naturally reproduce with each
have linked the importance
Oklahoma ex
are fundamental
There
26
couples to rear children.
from opposite sex couples because they are not able
distinct
12 20 13 Page
rel Williamson
of marriage to
316
its
U S 535 541
the very existence and survival of the
race.
The
ability
court does not find the States argument compelling because
to procreate might be in the context
defining characteristic
of conjugal
however persuasive the
of a particular religious perspective
from a
relationships
legal
and constitutional
it
is
not a
point of
view
oppositesex
The
States
couples
position demeans the dignity not just of
who
are unable to reproduce or
reasoning a post menopausal
woman
same sex
who choose
or infertile
because she or he does not have the capacity
man
not to have
Under the
children
does not have a fundamental
procreate
to
couples but of the many
right
States
to marry
This proposition is irreconcilable with
the right to liberty that the Constitution guarantees to all citizens
At oral argument the State attempted
men
and lesbians by arguing
that
position of caring for a grandchild
same sex
older
to
women
distinguish post menopausal
from gay
were more likely to find themselves in the
or other relative
But the State
fails
to
recognize that
couples are also in the position of raising a child perhaps through
surrogacy
women
The court sees no support for the States suggestion
26
that
adoption
samesex
many
or
couples are
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
only in a consent based approach
interested
S Ct
at
2718
Alito
J dissenting
12 20 13 Page
27
of
53
to marriage in which marriage focuses on the
strong emotional attachment and sexual attraction
133
Filed
of the two partners involved
See
samesex
Windsor
couples
may
decide to marry partly or primarily for the benefits and support that marriage can provide to the
the couple is raising or plans to raise
children
Same sex
couples are just as capable
support for future generations as opposite sex couples grandparents
there is no difference
between
who
Griswold
samesex
couples
who
choose not
to
or other caregivers
exercise their constitutionally protected right not to procreate
Connecticut 381
U S 479
day be able
to
was
consummate
1987
their
marriages
important irrespective
when
to
same sex
2
The
States
that
of additional
above
the Supreme
inmates
Turner
some inmates might one
they were released the Court found that
of its relationship to procreation
commitment
access to important legal and government
as applicable
noted
While the Supreme Court noted
expression of emotional support and public
provided
As
number
Court has discussed those attributes in the context
U S 78 95 96
See
1965
important attributes of marriage that exist besides procreation
Safley 482
And
have children and those
In any event the States argument also neglects to consider the
marriage
of providing
it
benefits
was
because
spiritually
Id These
it
was an
significant
attributes
and
it
of marriage are
couples as they are to opposite sex couples
The
Plaintiffs
second argument
access to an existing right
To
Seek Access
is that
establish a
to
an Existing Right
the Plaintiffs are really seeking a
new fundamental
right not
right the court must determine
the right is deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition
27
new
and implicit
in
the concept
that
of
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if
Washington
U S 702 721
Glucksberg 521
marriage has only recently been allowed by a
individuals
right to
US 1
1967
individuals could
exercising
not be restricted from exercising
Id
partner
at
12
their
alleged right to
simply the same
samesex
right that is
individuals
same sex
make
same sex
marriage
Both
right
the
right to
of the
right
to
partner
individuals the right to
make
relationship and create a family with a partner with
emotional
bond
This right is deeply rooted
it
protects an
deeply personal choices about love and family free from government
new
above
this right is
right then
it
should
But heterosexual individuals are as
marriage as gay
new
that
the State cannot prohibit them from
currently enjoyed by heterosexual
as discussed
marriage were a
citizens
same sex
And
to
Virginia
existing right to marry on account
history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because
ability
interference
that
marriage the Court held
of the sex of their chosen
the person shares an intimate and sustaining
the nations
to all
their
But the
right
marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is
public commitment to form an exclusive
in
of states the State argues that an
Similarly the Plaintiffs here do not seek a
existing right to marry on account
53
omitted Because samesex
right to interracial
marriage but instead ask the court to hold
The
whom
new
of
sacrificed.
of reasoning in the analogous case of Loving
this line
Instead of declaring
race of their chosen
same sex
number
citations
were
marrysomeone of the same sex cannot be a fundamental
Supreme Court did not adopt
388
1997
it
28
men and
enjoyed by
make new
likely
to
all
individuals
protections
If
the right to
and benefits available
exercise their purported
lesbians are to exercise their purported
right
right
to opposite sex
and opposite sex marriage are therefore simply manifestations
marry
applied
to
people with different sexual identities
28
to
of one
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Case
While
it
was assumed
until
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
recently that a person could
does not change
the underlying right
the facts before it
that right to
Applying
merely changes the
It
that right to
of
53
only share an intimate emotional
bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex the realization
is false
29
that this
when
result
assumption
the court applies
these Plaintiffs the court finds that the
Constitution protects their right to marry a person of the
same
same
sex to the
degree that the
sex
Constitution protects the right of heterosexual individuals to marry a person of the opposite
Because
the right to marry has already been established as a fundamental
finds that the Glucksberg
existing right not the declaration
here The
analysis is inapplicable
of a
new
Plaintiffs
right the court
are seeking access to an
right
Tradition and History Are Insufficient Reasons
to
Deny Fundamental
Rights to an Individual
Finally the State contends that the fundamental
right to
marrysomeone of the same sex because
meaning
so
in
the past
rigid that
it
The
those
who
this
drew and
ratified
or the Fourteenth
insight
the
Due
its
Lawrence
changed
have
The Constitution
principles operate on a
this
is
new
not
set
Process Clauses of the Fifth
Amendment
They knew
known
the components
been more specific
They
of liberty in its
did not presume
times can blind us to certain truths and later
generations can see that laws once thought

to
its
to
unknown
manifold possibilities they might have
have
has never been interpreted
always mandates the same outcome even when
Amendment
to
this right
marriage cannot encompass the
court is not persuaded by the States argument
of facts that were previously
Had
right to
necessary and proper in fact serve only
oppress As the Constitution endures persons in every generation can invoke

principles in their
Texas 539
own
search for greater freedom
U S 558 578 79
but the knowledge
of what
it
2003
means
to
Here
it
is
not the Constitution that has
be gay or lesbian
29
The
court cannot ignore the
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Case
fact that
same
Document 90
the Plaintiffs are able to develop a committed
sex but not with a person of the opposite
changed
Filed
12 20 13 Page
of
53
intimate relationship with a person of the
sex The court and
the State must adapt
to this
understanding
Summary of Due
The
Process Analysis
Amendment
Fourteenth
protects the liberty rights of all citizens
States arguments presents a compelling reason
heterosexual
individuals than
is
it
and family
intimate association
why
right
to
marry
are protected
life
If as is clear from the
persons choices about
a heterosexual
from unreasonable government
same
the marital context then a gay or lesbian person also enjoys these
The
concerning
citizens
courts
Lawrence
U S 186
1986
sexual relations
sodomy
and held
address whether
constitutional
the Court overruled
that
the
Due
same sex 539
of the individual.
the government
previous
US
at
provides
decision
578
protection
to
Id While
id
gay and lesbian
in Bowers
to
Hardwick
right to
have
its
intrusion into the
that
opinion did not
its
any relationship
that
the Court confirmed that our laws and tradition afford
personal decisions
seek autonomy
to
The Court ruled The Texas
the Court stated
must give formal recognition
persons seek to enter,
may
in
protections
Clause protected an individuals
Process
relating to
family relationships child rearing and education
relationship
its
Amendment
furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify
personal and private life
homosexual
Texas
the Fourteenth
that
with a partner of the
statute
interference
holding is supported even required by the Supreme Courts recent opinion
the scope of protection
In
and none of the
the scope of that right should be greater for
for gay and lesbian individuals
Supreme Court cases discussing the
478
30
marriage procreation contraception
and held
that
p ersons
for these purposes just as heterosexual
30
in
a homosexual
persons do.
Id
at
574
Case
emphasis
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
added The
opinion in Lawrence
Filed
12 20 13 Page
court therefore agrees with the portion
in which
protect an individuals
Document 90
right
of Justice Scalias
to marry a person of the same
made between
homosexual
that
conduct
conduct
heterosexual
is
what
53
dissenting
sex
and homosexual
in marriage is concerned
formal recognition
of
Justice Scalia stated that the Courts reasoning logically extends to
Todays opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law

distinction to be
31
that
has permitted a
unions insofar as
moral disapprobation
If
of
no legitimate state interest for purposes of proscribing

could there possibly be for denying the
justification
benefits of marriage to homosexual
couples exercising the liberty protected
by
the Constitution
Id
at
604 05
Scalia
The Supreme
J dissenting
citations
Courts decision
omitted
in Lawrence
disapproval
on which the State could have
at
one time relied
lesbian individuals from the rights of heterosexual
State has attempted to
make
reproduce with each other
Utah
any
As
is
its
But
argument
removed the only ground

moral
that
individuals
samesex
to
distinguish the rights of gay and
The
only other distinction the
couples are not able to naturally
of course neither can thousands of opposite sex couples in
a result there is no legitimate reason that the rights of gay and lesbian individuals are
different
fundamental
from those of other people
right
All citizens
regardless of their sexual identity have
to liberty and this right protects an individuals
ability to
marryand the
intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family
The
court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs have
protects their choice of a
D
The
right to
samesex
Amendment
courts
right to
marry
that
partner
3 Does Not Survive
determination
a fundamental
that
Strict
the fundamental
marry a person of the same sex
is
Scrutiny
right
to marry encompasses the Plaintiffs
not the end of the courts
31
analysis
The
State
may
pass
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
a law that restricts
a persons fundamental
may permissibly
compelling
interest
or
if
that
to
prohibition
Wilson 415
marry
is part
U S 953
if
life
and doctors
who wish
be denied
their right to
Plaintiffs
due process
to
Amendment
The Equal
The
Ferguson 163
protection
To
Similarly a state need not
of forming the requisite
for a prisoner serving a
As
much
less
a compelling
sentence
law
state
consent
See Butler
its
U S 537 559
jurisdiction
1896
coexists with the practical
See
prohibited
that
the mentally
the court finds that
discussed
reason
why
owners
below
the State
the Plaintiffs should
Amendment
Constitution neither
determine
has a
state
3 violates
the
under the Fourteenth Amendment
Protection
purpose or another
3 Violates the Plaintiffs Right to Equal Protection
XIV
a person may be married because the
marry the persons they love
marry Consequently
rights
53
For instance
Instead the Plaintiffs are ordinary citizens

business
prisoners
of
from marrying
of Utah has not demonstrated a rational
1993
court finds no reason that the Plaintiffs are comparable to children
incapable or
teachers
U S 292 302
summarily affirming decision to uphold a
prisoners incarcerated for life
The
32
the law is narrowly tailored to
person is mentally incapable
of the punishment
1974
that
against abuse and coercion
children
that
12 20 13 Page
Filed
provided
Flores 507
regulate the age at which
in protecting
allow an individual
rights
Reno
serve a compelling state interest.
state
Document 90
life
Case
Romer
knows
of its laws.
nor tolerates classes
Harlan
J dissenting
provides
among
no
that
state shall
U S Const
citizens.
But the guarantee
Plessy
whether a piece of
U S 620 631
legislation
32
violates
of equal
necessity that most legislation must classify for
Evans 517
amend
some
1996
Clause the
Case
court
classification
be upheld unless
it
is
significantly
Filed
12 20 13 Page
only those interests.
Elections
383
liberties
U S 663 670
are asserted
Zablocki
1966
We
434
discussed
interferes
US
under the Equal Protection
is
388
Clause
fail
Plaintiffs
3 on the
fundamental
Amendment
Bd
of
rights
right to
marry As
interest
But even
if
that
the court
rights the law would
still
3 discriminates against them on the basis of
Clause
When
their
a state regulation
of a certain class but does not significantly interfere with the
of the individuals in that class courts
scrutinize the challenged
regulation
there is reason to suspect
prejudice
minorities[.] United States
To
State
below
argue that
members
rights
cannot
it
because the State has not shown
fundamental
Plaintiffs
sex and sexual identity in violation of the Equal Protection
adversely affects
When a
which might invade
Here
fundamental
Plaintiffs
therefore unconstitutional
Amendment
the impact of
for the reasons discussed
The
53
where fundamental
that
classifications
the law is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental
disregarded
of
right
v Va
see also Harper
and carefully confined.
with the exercise of the
above Amendment
at
have long been mindful
or restrain them must be closely scrutinized
Amendment
right
with the exercise of a fundamental
interferes
33
supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to
effectuate
and
Document 90
looks to see whether the challenged law implicates a fundamental
first
statutory
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
first
determine
how
closely they should
Courts must not simply defer to the States judgment when
against discrete and insular minorities
of those political processes
Carolene Prods
decide whether a challenged
state
of a class in violation of the Equal Protection
which tends
ordinarily relied upon to protect
Co 304 U S 144
152 53
n 4 1938
law impermissibly discriminates against members
Clause the Supreme Court has developed varying
33
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Case
of scrutiny
tiers
that
courts apply depending
based on race or national
scrutiny.
Clark
must uphold a
Jeter 486
some
rational basis review
been applied
461
that
to
on what
origin are considered
U S 456 461
legislative classification
rational relation to
Document 90
that
legitimate end.
and
strict
can be sustained only
if
class
does not
Romer
of citizens is affected
53
Classifications
and are given the most exacting
a suspect
US
at
631
scrutiny lies a level of intermediate
this
of
the other end of the spectrum courts
target
517
34
class so long as
it
Between these extremes of
scrutiny
which generally has
based on sex or illegitimacy. Clark 486
intermediate
level of scrutiny
bears a
are quasi suspect
US
at
classifications
they are substantially related to an important governmental
Id
objective.
Heightened Scrutiny
The
Plaintiffs
scrutiny to this case
assert
three theories
why
the court should apply
some form
While the court discusses each of these theories below
not apply heightened scrutiny here because
Amendment
fails
it
of heightened
finds that
it
need
under even the most deferential
of review
level
1
The
because
it
Sex Discrimination
Plaintiffs
argue that the court should apply heightened scrutiny to
discriminates on the basis of an individuals
sex As
based on sex can be sustained only where the government
substantially related to an important governmental
518
12 20 13 Page
highly suspect
1988 On
discriminatory classifications
Classifications receiving
Filed
U S 515 533
1519
10th
1996
Cir 1994
citation
classifications
34
above
classifications
demonstrates that they are
objective[.]
omitted Concrete Works
Gender based
noted
Amendment
United States
City of
Denver 36
Virginia
F3d 1513
are evaluated under the intermediate
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
35
of
53
scrutiny rubric
The
prohibits a
woman
State concedes
man
its
In Loving
race because
statute
against
at
same sex
Amendment
78
The
against
required
justification
analyze
exceedingly
518
US
at
Utah
to
race.
persuasive
it
is
sex
Amendment 3
fails
justification
for
its
more
U S 1 89
does not immunize the
Id
men
at
and
Applying the same
women
justification
does not
that
the Fourteenth
it
need not
rigorous standard of demonstrating
prohibition
Sexual Orientation as a Suspect
Plaintiffs
undisputed
Plaintiffs
that
women
against
samesex
marriage
an
Virginia
533
2
The
to
also unable to satisfy the
is
Virginia 388
and
laws did not discriminate based on
3 from the heightened burden of
requires of state laws drawn according
why
men
which the Fourteenth Amendment has
of state statutes drawn according
But because the court finds
marrying a
marriage applied equally to both white and black
logic the court finds that the fact of equal application to both
Amendment
it
3 does not discriminate on the basis of
Court found that the fact of equal application
immunize Utahs Amendment
man from
marriage applies equally to both
mixed race
because
classifications
but does not prohibit that
Virginia argued that its anti miscegenation
from the very heavy burden of
traditionally
sex based
involves
rejected an analogous argument in Loving
the prohibition
Id
citizens
man
the State argues that
prohibition
The Supreme Court
1967
Amendment 3
from marrying another
Nevertheless
sex because
that
that
assert
that even
if
Amendment
Class
3 does not discriminate on the basis of sex
the law discriminates on the basis of a persons
maintain that gay
men
and lesbians as a
35
class
sexual orientation
The
exhibit the traditional indicia that
Case
indicate
411
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
they are especially
U S 1 28
1973
should be considered
apply heightened
The
at risk
The
violence
12 20 13 Page
Amendment
court declines to address the Plaintiffs
was
a lesbian
of this issue
argument because
2008
1105
it
finds that
Brooks
In a footnote
the court supported its statement with a
The court held
the Tenth Circuit and other Courts of
The American
Appeal
basis review
dicta
Id
at
1114
As a
that
this
is
Plaintiffs
contends
not persuaded by the
the plaintiffs
scrutiny.
of citations
Id
at
cases from
to
n9
that
the Tenth
that
in
even
Price
rational
the Tenth Circuits statement was
ACLUs argument Even
question the courts extensive footnote
based on sexual orientation
the domestic
heightened scrutiny would be appropriate
ACLU
bound by
in
if
the Tenth
Price Cornelison
the Tenth Circuit currently applies only rational basis review to
differently the court continues
The
result the
The court
Circuit did not need to reach
classifications
1113
that
the court found that the discrimination at issue did not survive
and not binding
clearly indicates
at
to
the Tenth Circuit
Civil Liberties Union submitted an amicus brief arguing
Circuit had no occasion to decide whether
Cornelison because
See id
number
is
it
order because
claim did not implicate a protected class which would warrant heightened
1113
Rodriguez
In Price Cornelison
F3d 1103
524
53
would require the court
a claim that an undersheriff refused to enforce a protective
victim
of
therefore urge the court to hold that sexual orientation
analysis of
to its
36
Indep Sch Dist
a quasi suspect class a holding which
the Tenth Circuits discussion
considered
Filed
San Antonio
of discrimination
Plaintiffs
at least
scrutiny
Document 90
Unless the Supreme Court or the Tenth Circuit hold
to follow this approach
Animus
contend
that
Amendment
is
36
based on animus against gay and lesbian
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
37
53
of
individuals and that the court should therefore apply a heightened level of scrutiny to the
below
discussed
opinions
2013
this
of
some
there is
Romer
support for the Plaintiffs
Evans 517
U S 620
1996
and United States
Supreme Court
the
in
As
Windsor 133
S Ct 2675
But because the Supreme Court has not yet delineated the contours of such an approach
court will continue
In
Romer
apply the standard rational basis test
to
the Supreme Court considered
prohibited any department
adopting
517
US
at
that
would protect gay
624 The amendment
these protections but also repealed ordinances
Denver Boulder and Aspen
unconstitutional
because
it
Id
at
violated
623 24 The
review.
judicial
tradition
Id
at
all
held that laws of the kind
imposed
is
had already been adopted
that
Clause Id
Court then held
that in
general
it
it
shall
inference
of persons affected.
analysis focused more on the purpose and effect of the Colorado
of the purported
The Supreme
that
First the Court ruled that
class
the
635
at
by the
Id
While the Court
is
37
similar
The
ed
this
the law had no rational
was
not within our
be more
difficult
Id Second
that
at
for one
the Court
the disadvantage
634
amendment
The Courts
than on a
legitimate interests the State asserted in support of
Courts opinion in Windsor
of
cities
amendment was
the Colorado law confound
before us raise the inevitable
born of animosity toward the
consideration
that
others to seek aid from the government[.]
now
from
lesbians or bisexuals
Supreme Court held
633 The
to enact a law declaring
group of citizens than for
men
relation to a legitimate end for two reasons
constitutional
that
not only prevented future attempts to establish
that
the rational basis test the Court also stated
normal process of
an amendment to the Colorado Constitution
or agency of the State of Colorado or any Colorado municipality from
any law or regulation
discrimination
cited
argument
law
its
law
Court did not analyze the
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Case
legitimate interests cited by
See Windsor 133
mention of the
S Ct
id
at
2707
them.
2689 and
impose a disadvantage
wed Id
permitted to
DOMAs
inequality, id at
Elec
Co v
consideration
Scalia
Instead
J dissenting
2693
at
2694
Because
Coleman
to
DOMAs
Fifth
legally
the Court cited the following
whether they are obnoxious
in
Romer
517
citation
that
US
at
omitted The
when
careful consideration.
If
633
scrutiny or a rational basis approach
that
US
at
633
was
to impose
wed samesex
at
couples of
2692
statement from Louisville
especially
suggest
Indeed the Windsor Court held
require careful consideration.
277
US
that
133
Ct
at
Courts emphasis on discriminations of an
presented with an equal protection
class
Gas
careful
challenge courts should
whether the law
is
subject to
the principal purpose or effect of a law is to impose inequality
need not even consider whether the
to
effect was to
to the constitutional provision.
analyze the laws design purpose and effect to determine
citizens
53
couples that a state had
Amendment. Id
Discriminations of an unusual character
determine
quoted
by the
same sex
principal purpose
the Court ruled that the law deprived
unusual character suggests
517
of
The majority makes only a passing
a separate status and so a stigma on
emphasis added
Romer
38
the Court focused on the design purpose and effect of
discriminations of an unusual character especially
first
held that the laws avowed purpose and practical
Romer and Windsor
32 37 38 1928
2693
12 20 13 Page
defenders as would be typical in a rational basis review
an essential part of the liberty protected
In both
Filed
arguments put forward by the Acts defenders and does not even trouble
paraphrase or describe
DOMA,
at
Document 90
of citizens
that
the law effects requires heightened
Such laws are not within our constitutional
and violate the Equal Protection
bears the disabilities imposed by the
tradition,
Clause regardless of the class of
law If on
38
a court
the other
hand
the law merely
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Case
distributes
political
12 20 13 Page
by
that
law are borne by a class of people
is
wary of adopting such an approach here
For instance
in
the Supreme Court has not elaborated
why Amendment
Court struck
down
Amendment
is
way
is
similar to both
in Windsor
and
DOMA
Romer
the
53
the
if
First the
or substantially
right to
avowed purpose and
equivalent
legal effect
context in which
was passed
it
has an unusual character
Even though Utah
that
as marriage
the imposition of inequality was not merely the laws effect
Second Amendment 3
that
but
its
same sex
This action
is
Massachusetts
whose Supreme Court
the recognition
of
samesex
Mass 2003 The
maintain Utahs
Utah
ban on
only logical
marriages
legislature
samesex
effect
of
couples which
This wording suggests
that
goal
when viewed
within the historical
already had statutory provisions that restricted
when viewed
Goodridge
Dept
of
amendment
against the developments
Pub
believed that a constitutional
39
Supreme
no domestic union could be
held in 2003 that the Massachusetts
marriage because
explicit
3 went beyond
marriage to opposite sex couples the State nevertheless passed a constitutional
codify this prohibition
the
practical
Indeed Amendment
marryand held
more
There are a number of reasons
and the Colorado amendment
of saying that the law imposes inequality
same
Romer and
court should determine
to deny the responsibilities and benefits of marriage to
denying gay and lesbian individuals the
given
of
has a history of oppression
the absence of
how a
whether a law imposes a discrimination of an unusual character
another
that
only
analysis appears to follow the Supreme Courts reasoning in
this
Windsor the court
is
scrutiny
39
powerlessness
While
guidance
Filed
benefits unevenly then the law is subject to heightened
disadvantages imposed
and
Document 90
to
in
Constitution required
Health 798
N E 2d 941 948
amendment was
necessary
to
of the possibility that a Utah court would
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
40
of
53
adopt reasoning similar to the Massachusetts Supreme Court and hold that the Utah Constitution
already protected an individuals
right
to marry a
samesex
Amendment
partner
preemptively denied rights to gay and lesbian citizens of Utah that they
3 thereby
may have
already had
under the Utah Constitution
why Amendment
But there are also reasons
Supreme Court has previously held
the Court has not articulated
to
to
U S 528 534
1973
The
may
be distinguishable
be discriminations of an unusual character
Plaintiffs
U S Dept
unpopular
group.
argue that
Amendment 3 was
of
Agric
The Pamphlet
amendment was
ideal
includes
necessary
relationship where
to
arguments made by Amendment
Pamphlet to General Election on
same sex
in
the
by a
Moreno 413
by animus and urge
was
provided
and children thrive
Nov 2
2004
3 s proponents that the
Amendment 3 was adopted
to
of the
Utah Voter Information
best.
36 Dkt 32
at
to Utah
The
Plaintiffs
submit
that
these
further privately held moral views
that
couples are immoral and inferior to opposite sex couples
While the
dislike
Most notably
maintain public morality and to ensure the continuation
men women
statements demonstrate that
motivated
the court to consider the statements in the Voter Information Pamphlet that
voters
from the laws the
what extent such a discrimination must be motivated
desire to harm a politically
bare
Plaintiffs
argue that
of gay and lesbian individuals
mind
good intentions
amendment would
do not save a law
if
citizens voted
Some
of each individual voter
of a belief that the
many Utah
citizens
it
is
may have
for
Amendment 3
impossible to determine
voted
for
Amendment 3
protect the benefits of opposite sex marriage
the law bears no rational connection
interests but this analysis is the test the court applies
40
when
it
out of a
to its
what was
purely out
Of course
stated legitimate
follows the Supreme Courts
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
rational basis jurisprudence
It
is
Document 90
how
unclear
Filed
12 20 13 Page
mix of animus and good
41
53
of
intentions
affects
determination of whether a law imposes a discrimination of such unusual character that
requires the court to give
it
careful
the courts
Amendment
strict
determination of
3 burdens the
And
scrutiny
Amendment
Plaintiffs
as discussed
scrutiny that the Plaintiffs advocate
3 s constitutionality
fundamental
below
right
some laws
neither burden a fundamental
right
impose a discrimination of such unusual character
law with careful consideration
heightened
Amendment
review
Rational
When
fundamental
The
to
Amendment 3
rational
nor target a suspect
that
basis review
It
may be
class but nevertheless
But the courts analysis here does not hinge on
court therefore proceeds to apply the
well settled
that
rational
to
such a
type of
basis test to
Basis Review
a law creates
classification
but does not target a suspect
right the court presumes the law is valid and will uphold
some
legitimate governmental
spoken through a referendum
for the classification
knowing
bears no rational
a court must review a challenge
purpose
See Heller
v Doe
court defers to the judgment of the legislature or the judgment
1981
court has already held that
relates
The
The
not necessary
is
to marriage and is therefore subject to
relationship to any legitimate state interests and therefore fails
that
it
consideration
In any event the theory of heightened
to
the
is
if
class
it
so long as
509
But even under the most deferential
of the people
Clover Leaf Creamery
standard of review
the relation between the classification
41
to
rationally
who
1993
have
the underlying basis
Co 449 U S 456
the court must
adopted and the object
it
U S 312 319
there is at least a debatable question whether
rational See Minnesota
or burden a
still
464
insist on
be obtained.
Romer
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Case
Evans 517
U S 620 632
1996
Document 90
Lyng
Filed
Union 485
Intl
12 20 13 Page
U S 360 375 L
enactments must implicate legitimate goals and the means chosen by the
rational relationship to those goals.
classifications
Romer
517
US
particular
group
528
1973
534
The
when
at
to
633 As
uphold a
US
See
State emphasizes that the court must accept
there is an imperfect
fit
Based on
this
principle
same sex
extending
No
couples
the State argues that
interests which
right to
that
would not be furthered
that
is
marry Instead
between the challenged
the Constitution provides
courts are required
statute
to
just
same sex
its
Agric
that
Moreno 413
US
generalizations even
US
at
321 The
Robison 415
extension
interests
if
court will
U S 361 383
of marriage benefits to
such as responsible procreation
marriage benefits were extended to
The courts focus
is
not on whether
determine
and a legitimate
state
to
an individuals
whether there
interest
The
Here
effect
of
couples from gaining access to these benefits
42
interest
legitimate but compelling governmental
such protection
not grant marriage benefits to opposite sex couples
disallow
ensure s
couples serves a legitimate governmental
marriage benefits serve not
why
of
legislative
Johnson
But the State poses the wrong question
marriage benefits to heterosexual
one disputes
must bear a
the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental
opposite sex couples promotes certain governmental
and optimal child rearing
Dept
any
purpose and the addition of other groups would not.
1974
egislative
the group burdened by the law.
between means and ends. Heller 509
provided
classification
53
a result a law must do more than disadvantage or otherwise harm a
survive
of
legislature
This search for a rational relationship
are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging
42
is
a rational connection
the challenged
Amendment 3
The
fundamental
is
statute
only to
court must therefore
does
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
analyze whether
the States interests in responsible
by prohibiting
furthered
Document 90
same sex
satisfied
tax benefits because
U S 432 448 50
developmental
535 38
testing
decision
well supported
US
at
1985
disabilities
to
381 82
U S 438 448 53
in
to
same
the
citys interest
in
interracial
interest
interest in
excluding
U S 1 9 12
couples from marriage violated
in providing marriage to
1967
cites
The
on an
from receiving veterans
Cleburne Living
Ctr Inc
unrelated
Moreno 413
US
at
households from food
Eisenstadt
Baird 405
of unmarried couples from
to
allow married couples
examining whether Virginias exclusion
principles independent
of
of Virginias
samerace couples
that
the legitimate government
prohibition of
same sex
interests
that
marriage
Responsible Procreation
State argues that the exclusion
interest in
was
extent as the lives of active
households
equal protection
are not rationally related to Utahs
and the
denying housing for people with
requiring a state interest in the exclusion
For the reasons stated below the court finds
Utah
interests
not in continuing to allow residence for others
Virginia 388
53
the rational basis test
objectors
See also City of Cleburne
examining the
that
lawful access to contraception not merely an interest in continuing
access Loving
of
a number of Supreme Court
Robinson
maintaining food stamps for related
1972
in
exclude conscientious
the federal governments
stamp benefits not
had not been disrupted
their lives
415
service veterans
473
between the States legitimate
of a group from benefits is
by a congressional
43
and optimal child rearing are
procreation
For instance the Court held in Johnson
decisions
12 20 13 Page
couples from marrying
This focus on a rational connection
States exclusion
Filed
of
samesex
promoting responsible procreation
43
couples from marriage is justified based
within marriage
According to the State
Case
t raditional
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
marriage with
Document 90
accompanying
its
opposite sex couples to commit together
governmental
form
Plaintiffs
12 20 13 Page
Defs.
in
which
Mot
44
53
of
an incentive for
benefits provides
a stable family
unplanned biological children may be raised.
especially
The
to
Filed
their
Summ
planned and
do not dispute the States assertion but question how disallowing
at
33
28 Dkt
samesex
marriage has any effect on the percentage of opposite sex couples that have children within a
The
marriage
to
State has presented no evidence
marry each other
marry Indeed
it
is likely
to
be affected
defies reason to conclude
in
that
the
number
any way by the
that
allowing
of opposite sex couples choosing
ability
samesex
of
samesex
couples to
couples to marry will
diminish the example that married opposite sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts
Both opposite sex and
samesex
couples model the formation of committed
relationships and both establish families based on mutual love and support
connection
between
samesex
As a
procreation
US
Because
Amendment
3 does not currently permit
couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage the State reinforces
sexual activity
473
there is any
If
marriage and responsible procreation the relationship is likely to
be the opposite of what the State suggests
same sex
exclusive
at
may
is so attenuated
3 and the
Schwarzenegger
704
F Supp
couples to marry will not affect the
marry divorce cohabit have
opposite sex marriage.
3 and the
Amendment
children
interest
2d
number
921
that
in
972
affect
the court finds no rational connection
encouraging
44
its
citizens
responsible
City of Cleburne
N D Cal 2010
of opposite sex couples
outside of marriage or otherwise
Accordingly
states
States interest in
as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.
see also Perry
Permitting samesex
Amendment
norm
take place outside the marriage relationship
result any relationship between
446
who
the stability of
between
to engage in responsible
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
45
of
53
procreation
2
The
ideal that
Optimal Child Rearing
State also asserts that prohibiting
children born within a state sanctioned
father in a stable family unit.
gold standard
Mot
Defs.
for family life
is
couples from marrying promotes
The
setting
Plaintiffs
marriage will be raised by both a mother and
Summ J at 33 Dkt 33
an intact biological married family
dispute the States argument that children
opposite sex parents than by
demeaning not only
to
same sex
children
of
parents
samesex
The
parents
Both
States gold standard.
the extent the parties have
children
Utah contends
Id
at
34
that
the
By providing
Once again
in this
have
created
a factual
cited
do
that
better
when
the States position is
in
families that do not meet the
numerous authorities
to
support their positions
dispute about the optimal environment
summary judgment
its
for
But the court
debate because the States argument is unpersuasive for another reason
the State fails to demonstrate any rational link between its prohibition of
marriage and
raised by
but also to adopted children of opposite sex
resolve this dispute on motions for
the court cannot
need not engage
parties
claim
Plaintiffs
parents children of single parents and other children living
To
the
for only opposite sex marriage Utah asserts that more children will be raised in this
incentives
ideal
samesex
goal of having
more
children
raised in the family structure
samesex
the State wishes to
promote
There
to
have or
is
raise
no reason to believe
children
that
Amendment
3 has any
effect
whether they are opposite sex couples or
has presented no evidence
that
lesbians to adopt children
to
Amendment 3
on the choices of couples
samesex
couples
furthers or restricts the ability of gay
have children through surrogacy or
45
artificial
The
men
State
and
insemination or to
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
46
53
of
oppositesex
take care of children
decisions
about
adoption
more
children
States
roughly 3,000 children
85
40 Dkt
Decl
samesex
same sex
couples
couples
who
are legally
children
that
samesex
opposite sex families
had with an
couples to
marry To
of
same sex
base
the extent
The
marriage detracts from the States goal of
State does not contest the Plaintiffs
samesex
in
in their
humiliates
question
makes
of their
daily lives.
it
even more
own
difficult
family and
couples,
id
its
Ct
at
at
Utah
protection
DOMA
thousands of children
Windsor 133
samesex
of
States
couples in
yet
Finally Utahs
of both opposite sex and
will grow up with the knowledge
prohibition of
same sex
that
couples
samesex
who
assertion
Patterson
Amendment 3
harmed the children
now
being raised by
for the children
to
concord with other families
2694
Amendment
2695 because
it
in
3 also
denies the families
a panoply of benefits that the State and the federal government
wed
will
goals are tied to laws
its
the Supreme Court found that
that
Amendment 3
brings financial harm to children
of these children
may have
they
These children are also worthy of the
The law
community and
of
are currently being raised by
understand the integrity and closeness
their
ability
for children
harms them for the same reasons
of
in
prohibition
promoting optimal environments
that
own whom
and surrogacy not marriage
anything the
If
their
having children on the
the State wishes to see
concerning
are biologically
Similarly the State has presented no evidence
partner
their
that
offer to
families
marriage further injures the
themselves are gay or lesbian and
the State does not believe
they are as capable
who
of creating
family as their heterosexual friends
For these reasons Amendment
raised by opposite sex parents
As
3 does not make
it
any more
likely
that
children
will be
a result the court finds that there is no rational connection
46
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
samesex
between Utahs prohibition of
environment
considering
any evidence
Proceeding
State contends
that
to justify
was concerned
because of the
that
12 20 13 Page
fears
mere negative
of
53
its
with Caution
to
samesex
encompass
fears The States argument
Cleburne Living Center
issuing a permit for a
about
is
couples
Inc
home
473
U S 432
it
with caution
in
not able to cite
1985
for the developmentally
Id
at
448 The
and the
almost any setting
In that case
disadvantaged
Supreme Court held
are not permissible bases for treating a
State can plead an interest in proceeding
the States argument here
is
when
analogous to the City of Cleburnes
of the property owners near the facility
attitudes or fear
with caution
But the State
mentally retarded differently from apartment houses multiple dwellings
accept
47
marriage and its goal of fostering an ideal family
has a legitimate interest in proceeding
it
expanding marriage
position in City of Cleburne
the City
Filed
for a child
3
The
Document 90
home
for the
like.
Id The
the court were to
If
would turn the rational basis analysis into a toothless and
samesex
perfunctory
review
In any event the only evidence that either party submitted concerning
marriage suggests that the States fears are unfounded
In an amicus brief submitted
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by the District of Columbia and fourteen
permit
samesex
jurisdictions
divorce
marriage the
states assert that
has not resulted in any decrease
in
the implementation of
allowing
at
24 28 Ex
samesex
13
to Pls.
Mem
in
states
that
same sex
Oppn Dkt
85 14
the
unions in their
in
Brief of State Amici in Sevcik
In addition
marriage is straightforward and requires no change
47
to
currently
opposite sex marriage rates any increase
rates or any increase in the number of nonmarital births
Sandoval
the effect of
to state
the process of
tax divorce or
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
For these reasons the court finds
sufficient
to
survive
4
As noted
48
of
53
the courts
the Traditional
discussion
cannot form a rational basis for a
law
Definition
of fundamental
Ancient
it
is
Williams
from constitutional
not a legitimate state
Marriage
rights the State argues that preserving
Illinois
399
legislative
attack
But
it
tradition
U S 235 239
and
judicial
see also Heller
does not give
lineage of a legal concept
of
a legitimate state interest
the antiquity of a practice nor the fact of steadfast
the centuries insulates
with caution
Preserving
in
proceeding
that
the traditional definition of marriage is itself
1993
12 20 13 Page
laws
inheritance
interest
Filed
1970
adherence
v Doe
509
alone
to
either
through
it
U S 312 326
immunity from attack for lacking a
rational basis.
The
traditional
gender roles
539
that
were
U S 558 577 78
miscegenation
Hibbs 538
womens
view of marriage has
insufficient
2003
certain views about race and
the past included
to uphold laws based on these
views
either history nor tradition could
from constitutional attack
U S 721 733 35
in
2003
citation
Texas
save a law prohibiting
omitted Nevada
finding that government
See Lawrence
Dept
of
Human Res
action based on stereotypes about
greater suitability or inclination to assume primary childcare
responsibility
was
samesex
unconstitutional
institution
And
as Justice Scalia has noted in dissent preserving
of marriage is just a kinder
couples.
Lawrence 539
outside the reach
of the
US
law
expense of a disfavored groups
at
way
601
of describing
Scalia
the traditional
the States moral disapproval
J dissenting
While
p rivate
of
biases
may be
the law cannot directly or indirectly give them effect at the
constitutional
rights
48
Palmore
Sidoti 466
U S 429 433
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
49
of
53
1984
Although the State did not
court notes that
continue
If
its
own moral
anything the recognition
of
Windsor 133
Ct
2675
in
so See
Utah desire to perform
beliefs
that
that
In
between
connection
its
Rational
88
to
just
samesex
that
the availability
forego marriage
By
of
was
8 15
United
States
the right to marry a
recognizing
practice their religious
to
unable to articulate
its
traditional
The
samesex
a specific
marriage and any of its stated
simply dont know.
This argument is not persuasive
assumption
at
Basis Analysis
prohibition of
At most the State asserted We
Dkt
al
briefing and at oral argument the State
its
wedding ceremonies but
the States interest in preserving
definition of marriage is not sufficient to survive
Summary of
because some
other groups must adopt similar practices
For these reasons the court finds
may
of numerous religious beliefs including the Unitarian
the State allows these groups the freedom
without mandating
which
the
arguing that the inherent dignity of lesbian and
Universalist Church and the United Church of Christ
sex
et
freedom
about marriage
traditions
samesex
Brief of Amici Curiae Bishops
gay individuals informs the theology
partner of the same
own
marriage expands religious freedom
No 12 307
2013
for religious institutions
viewpoints and define their
samesex
churches that have congregations
are currently unable to do
present an argument based on religious
does not mandate any change
decision
to express their
directly
Hrg
Tr
at
legitimate interests
94 97 Dec
2013
States position appears to be based on an
marriage will
somehow
But the State has not presented any evidence
cause opposite sex couples
that
heterosexual
will be any less inclined to enter into an opposite sex marriage simply because
49
individuals
their
gay and
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
lesbian fellow citizens are able to enter into a
any
effect
of the availability of
opposite sex or
same sex
same sex
Utah as a
reasoning
valid
result
in
samesex
union
concerns
the
To
are unworthy of
state recognition
second
tier
at
2710
Scalia
J dissenting
The
children
of
samesex
to children
couples
who
samesex
all
the
world
that their
samesex
way And
couples
differentiation
while
otherwise
couples in an
demeans the
Windsor 133
S Ct
suggesting that the majoritys reasoning
applied to the state law context in precisely this
any additional protection
shown
apply the Supreme Courts
This places
relationship
by
experienced
couple whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.
id
53
of
Similarly the State has not
harm
Windsor Amendment 3 tells those couples and
unstable position of being in a
see also
50
partners
of their inability to marry is undisputed
relationships
12 20 13 Page
marriage on the number of children raised by either
In contrast to the States speculative
in
Filed
it
2694
could be
Amendment 3 does
being raised by opposite sex couples
at
not offer
demeans the
are told that their families are less worthy of protection
than
other families
The
Plaintiffs
court should be
differentiates
more
have presented a number of compelling arguments demonstrating
skeptical
of
Amendment
without applying
that
heightened
the Supreme Court struck
scrutiny
to
on the basis of sexual identity without a
rational
the Plaintiffs
typical
legislation
Amendment
rational
to equal protection
under the
in
law
50
discrimination
Romer and Windsor
But even
the court finds that the law discriminates
reason to do
basis review the court finds that Utahs
right
down
the
The law
on the basis of sex and closely resembles the type of law containing
of an unusual character
even
3 than of
that
so Because Amendment 3
prohibition on
same sex
fails
marriage violates
Case
VI
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Utahs Duty to Recognize
Plaintiffs
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
that their rights
protection
are further infringed by the States refusal to recognize
performed
in
moot
question
elsewhere not because
to due process and equal
marriage that was validly
their
same sex
they discriminate against a subsection of
who
couples
samesex
were married
couples in Utah
were validly married in another state but because they discriminate against
in
53
courts disposition of the other issues in this lawsuit renders this
current laws violate the rights of
Utahs
of
a Marriage Validly Performed in Another State
Karen Archer and Kate Call contend
Iowa The
51
same sex
all
who
couples
Utah
CONCLUSION
1966
attorneys for the State of Virginia
law prohibiting
Court in support of Virginias
here under attack
higher rate of divorce
number
of children
constitutes
obtains in seventeen
still
among
to
Virginia 388
the assertions
marriage
marriage
US 1
made by
it
this
1 The
2 Inasmuch
not proper to
4 U nder
ask
as
we
1967
WL
113931
for over two
have already noted the
we
Shall
then add to the
3 I ntermarriage
the Constitution the regulation
are reserved to the States.
1967
Virginia statutes
Commonwealth
the victims of their intermarried parents?
society and
marital and family relationships
Loving
states
the intermarried is
who become
threat to
interracial
arguments to the Supreme
the following
sic a policy which has obtained in
reflects
centuries and which
made
and control of
Brief for Respondents at
47 52
These contentions are almost
the State of Utah in support of Utahs
laws prohibiting
identical
samesex
For the reasons discussed above the court finds these arguments as unpersuasive as
the Supreme Court found them fifty
elsewhere were designed
years
to and did
ago Anti miscegenation laws
deprive
a targeted minority of the
51
in Virginia and
full
In
measure of human
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
dignity and liberty by denying
Amendment
Document 90
them the freedom
to
Filed
12 20 13 Page
marry the partner of
or supporting
be
nor ever will
worthy of recognition
of opposite sex marriage
it
the most traditional aspects
Amendment
53
Utahs
traditional
marriage
of marriage to thousands of
strengthened by a partnership
of
samesex
Amendment
samesex
And
couples
vows
status
while the
protects that interest by denying one of
it
its
citizens
the right to form a family
based on love intimacy and shared responsibilities
desire to publicly declare their
couples are not
3 does not thereby elevate the
merely demeans the dignity of
State cites an interest in protecting
Plaintiffs
choice
the families of opposite sex couples
perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships
that is
of
3 achieves the same result
Rather than protecting
now
their
52
The
of commitment and support to each other is a
testament to the strength of marriage in society not a sign that by opening its doors to all
individuals
The
any way by
it
is in
State of Utah has provided
samesex
and speculations
its
danger of collapse
marriage
are insufficient
gay and lesbian citizens
rights which include
government
government
These
no evidence
In the absence
to justify
Moreover
that
opposite sex marriage will be affected in
of such evidence
fears
the States refusal to dignify the family relationships of
the Constitution protects the Plaintiffs
the right to marry and the right to have
rights
the States unsupported
would be meaningless
if
that
fundamental
marriage recognized
by
their
the Constitution did not also prevent the
from interfering with the intensely personal choices an individual makes when
person decides to
make
a solemn commitment to another
therefore protects the choice of ones partner for
all
52
human being
citizens
The
that
Constitution
regardless of their sexual identity
Case
2 13 cv 00217 RJS
Document 90
Filed
12 20 13 Page
53
of
53
ORDER
The
DENIES
that
court
GRANTS
the Defendants
Amendment
is
the Plaintiffs
Motion for Summary Judgment
Motion for Summary Judgment
unconstitutional
because
33
and
The court hereby declares
denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process
court hereby enjoins the State from enforcing
Article
it
Dkt
Dkt 32
Sections
of the United States Constitution
30 1 2
and
30 1 4.1
of the Utah
The
Code and
29 of the Utah Constitution to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying
another person of the
SO ORDERED
same sex
this
20th day of December 2013
BY THE COURT
ROBERT J SHELBY
United States
53
District
Judge
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Katharine
Sent
12 23 2013 1 06 01
Subject
Re
Sheila
VON TER STEGGE

PM
Proposed
Schedule
Given the
response
demands on the AG and

That work for you
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief
for
Lake Perriguey
Summary Judgment
Governor
we
d like
to
Motion
have
until
Feb
10 for the
com
wrote
MSJ
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
19
Dec
LEaston
Notice
2013
of
at
Justice
11 52 AM
dorsayindianlaw
This
Lea
Ann
com mailto
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
privileged
is
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Here
is
our proposed
Plaintiffs
State
and
Motion
County
Plaintiffs
Also
the
Obviously
has been
Also I
under
Lea
ve
filed
due
Court will
will
on 1 9 2014
Defendants
Reply
anticipate
schedule
Reponses
on or before

calling
Lake
attached
state
and
the
New
NM
SCT
on or before
conference
by whatever
today
Mexico
they
12192013
ve
Supreme
statutes
Oliver
due
be asking
for expedited
hearing
on the
motion
1 30 2014
after
the
County
files
its
answer which
we
12 23 2013
Ann
Greigo v
will
2 13 2014
set a scheduling
be on or before
We
motion
pdf
BRO files
filed
the
Jennifer
complaint
Court decision
Middleton
BRO s lead
counsel
today
allowed
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Katharine
Sent
12 23
Subject
RE
No ce
communica on
This
intended
a specic
for
should delete
this
any disclosure
H
VON TER STEGGE
2013 1 09 30 PM
Sheila
Proposed
including
Schedule
for
Summary Judgment
may contain
any a achments
communica on and
copying
Lake Perriguey
and
is
protected
Motion
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
hereby no ed that
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
we
any a achments
inform you that any

is
party any transac
ma er addressed
on
or
for
the response to the MSJ
S federal tax advi
Code
avoiding
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
Sheila
Yes
that will
work
We
are looking at
new
complaint tod
ay and possible responses
to
mo on
consolidate
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton LLP
Suite 440
Portland
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
From
Potter
Sent
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Katharine
Subject
Re
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
Monday
VON TER STEGGE
Lake
Perriguey
Proposed Schedule for Summary Judgment
Given the demands on the
AG
and Governor
we
Motion
like
to have until
Feb 10 for the
you
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On Dec
19
LEaston
2013
at
Justice
11 52
dorsayindianlaw
AM
com
Lea Ann Easton

mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
MSJ
response
That work for
to
This communication
Notice

this
communication
avoiding
is
with
including
IRS
Internal
or matter addressed
Plaintiffs
Motion
filed
Also
for a
on 1 9 2014
State and County Defendants
Plaintiffs
by law
or the taking
we
regulations
any attachments
under the
penalties
any transaction
Here
protected
is
contain privileged
If
you are not the
or conf
in
is
Code
Revenue
inform you that any
or
ii
promoting
idential
fied that
it
strictly
is
federal tax advice
you should delete
any disclosure
prohibited
contained in this
and cannot be u sed

marketing
tended recipient
To comply
communication
may
any attachments
and
copying
Notice
including
and purpose
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
summary judgment motion
We
Reponses
will
be asking for expedited hearing on the
motion
due on or before 1 30 2014
after
the County
files
its
answer
wh
ich
we
anticipate
will
be on or
before 12 23 2013
Obviously
Lake and
Also
this
I
may be
today
ve attached
BRO
affected by whatever
the
New
files
Jennifer Middleton
BRO
lead
counsel
has been calling
today
Mexico Supreme Court decision affirming gay marriage
is
al
lowed under
state statutes
Lea Ann
Greigo v Oliver
NM
SCT
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
12192013 pdf
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
12 23 2013 1 14 00
Subject
Re
That deadline works for us
Sheila
Proposed
We
will
Lake Perriguey
PM
Schedule
for
Summary Judgment
Motion
our answer today
file
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Mon Dec
No ce
at
1 09
communica on
This
intended
23 2013
for
a specic
should delete
any disclosure
this
PM
including
Lea Ann Easton
copying
and
dorsayindianlaw
may contain
any a achments
communica on and
LEaston
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
communica on
or the taking
wrote
conde
you are
com
n al informa on
and are
of any ac
hereby no ed that
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
we
inform you that any
any a achments
is
avoiding
party any transac
ma er addressed
on
or
for
the response to the MSJ
S federal tax advi
Code
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
Sheila
Yes
that will
work
consolidate
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton LLP
Suite 440
SW
Columbia
We
are looking at
new
complaint tod
ay and possible responses
to
mo on
to
OR
Portland
97258
503 790 9060
From
Potter
Sent
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Katharine
Subject
Re
mailto
sheila
doj state or us
potter
Monday
VON TER STEGGE
Lake
Perriguey
AG
we
and Governor
Motion
like
to have until
Feb 10 for the
MSJ
response
That work for
you
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On Dec
19
LEaston
2013
at
11 52
communication
including
and purpose
avoiding
any transaction
with
including
IRS
or matter addressed
Motion
filed
Plaintiffs
for a
on 1 9 2014
Also
protected
is
regulations
Internal
Plaintiffs
may
any attachments
and
by law
or the taking
we
any attachments
under the
penalties
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
contain privileged
If
you are not the
or conf
in
is
Code
Revenue
inform you that any
or
ii
promoting
idential
it
fied that
is
federal tax advice
strictly
you should delete
any disclosure
prohibited
contained in this
and cannot be u sed

marketing
tended recipient
To comply
communication
is
mailto LEaston
copying
Notice
Lea Ann Easton
com
dorsayindianlaw
Here
AM
This communication
Notice
this
Justice
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
We
Reponses
will
motion
after
the County
files
its
answer
wh
ich
we
anticipate
will
be on or
before 12 23 2013
Obviously
Lake and
this
I
may be
today
BRO
files
today
Jennifer Middleton
BRO
lead
counsel
has been calling
Also
ve attached
the
New
is
al
lowed under
state statutes
Lea Ann
Greigo v Oliver
NM
SCT
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
12192013 pdf
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
H
VON TER STEGGE
From
Potter
To
Katharine
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
12 23 2013 1 20 56
Subject
Re
Thanks
With
Proposed
Lake Perriguey
PM
Schedule
for
Summary Judgment
Motion
all
respect
week
Sheila
My
plaintiff
thinks
to
the
initial
probably
m off
other
take
does
base
case
know
from a quick
have
on that
had
swing
organizational
I
always
brought
through
up the
the
standing
welcome
case
issue
law
is
on behalf
people
pointing
of
out
of
standing
that
its
the
in our call
Basic
members
that
If
last
Rights
someone
might be wrong
about
a thing
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
23
Dec
katevts
2013
at
deadline
Kate
von
Ter
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
Dec
for us
County
23
988
500
will
STEGGE
wrote
our answer today
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
katevts
co
2013
1 09 PM
at
Multnomah
Lea
com mailto
communication
Ann
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
multco us
Easton
LEaston
including
information
the
file
Portland
3377
dorsayindianlaw
This
We
VON TER
multco us
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
LEaston
Katharine
katevts
Stegge
Assistant
Notice
1 14 PM
works
Senior
Mon
Justice
multco us mailto
That
On
of
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete
com
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
materials and any attachments

and are hereby notified
distribution of this communication
or the taking of
and
or confidential
by law
or shred
If
you
the
that any disclosure

copying or
any action based on it
is strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
cannot be used
ii
promoting
we
including
inform you that
any attachments
any U S
is
not
federal
intended
to
tax advice
be used
for the purpose of

i
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue
marketing or recommending
to another party any transaction or matter
and
Code or
addressed
herein
Sheila
Yes
that
will
work
possible responses
Lea
Ann
for the
to
response
motion to
to
the
consolidate
MSJ
We
are looking
at
new
complaint
today
and
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
503
790
From
OR
tel
Potter
Sent
Monday
Lea
Cc
Katharine
9060
potter
doj state
23
2013
or us mailto
sheila
potter
Motion
doj state
or us
1 06 PM
Easton
Re
the
Given
790
December
To
Subject
503
Sheila
sheila
Ann
Columbia
97258
9060
mailto
LLP
1 SW
VON TER
STEGGE
Lake
Proposed Schedule
demands on the
response
That
work
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief
AG and
Perriguey
Governor
we
d like
to
have
until
Feb
10 for the
MSJ
for you
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
19
Dec
LEaston
mailto
2013
at
Justice
11 52 AM
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
Notice
of
This
Lea
Ann
com mailto
dorsayindianlaw
communication
com
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
dorsayindianlaw
mailto
including
information
Easton
LEaston
LEaston
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
com
dorsayindianlaw
may contain
purpose
and
com 3e 3e
privileged
is
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
based
or confidential
by law
or shred
any disclosure
any action
wrote
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Here
is
our proposed
Plaintiffs
and
State
Motion
County
Plaintiffs
Also
the
Obviously
has been
Also I
under
Lea
ve
filed
due
Court will
will
on or before
Lake
and
the
New
will
due
motion
be asking
on or before
for expedited
hearing
on the
motion
1 30 2014
2 13 2014
set a scheduling
be on or before
attached
We
Reponses

calling
state
conference
after
the
County
files
its
answer which
we
12 23 2013
by whatever
today
Mexico
they
BRO files
ve
Supreme
filed
the
Jennifer
complaint
Court decision
Middleton
BRO s lead
counsel
today
allowed
statutes
Ann
Greigo v
Oliver
NM
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
on 1 9 2014
Defendants
Reply
anticipate
schedule
SCT
12192013
pdf
NOTICE
e mail may contain
information
that
is
privileged
confidential
or otherwise
exempt from
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
you are not
the
addressee
confidential
and
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
To
Potter
Sent
12 23 2013 5 04 35
Subject
Utah
usnews nbcnews
http
com
Sheila
H
PM
news 2013 12 23 22021385
federal
judge allows
same sex mar riage
in
utah
to continue
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
12 24 2013 9 44 59
Subject
RE
Sheila
Proposed
AM
Schedule
for
Summary Judgment
Motion
Sheila
m not
doesn
BRO
convinced
have members
which means
membership
devoted
of
which
is
a civic organiza on
The cons tu onal minimum of
context
individual
HOME
whether
frustra
on
of
BMC
Council v
other injury if
it
742 748 9th

in
S at 379
to sue
scarce resources
its
Cir
1992
instance
at
an
905
It
when
1994
aect
Cf
for
HOME
minimum
both a d
Havens
to counsel people on where they might
Pacic
Smith v
challenged
policy
Dev
Props
El
iversion of
that
require d the
Legal Servs
Inc
to expend
organiza ons
a
Id
at
its
standing
In
determining
and a
resources
ga on costs or simply
li
See
all
e g
Fair
Employment
would have suered
it
some
example housing discrimina on
liv
if
the organiza on didn
one
injury
or the other
9th Cir 2004
Oce of
Exec
resources
in
individual
for
358 F 3d 1097 1105
Corp
Rescate
which are
standing in the
test for
the organiza o
In
the
of
statute requires that
Ed 2d 214 1982
102 S Ct 1114 The organiza on could not avoid suering
from other eorts
welfare
organiza onal plain has
must instead show
non prot
welfare
2 causa on and 3
injury in fact
suered
it
It
three
its
people of the community
cannot manufacture the injury by incurring
Cir
in
the same inquiry as in the case of an
conduct
injury
The
the
363 378 102 S Ct 1114 71
we
1276 77 D C
wonder whether BRO can
For example
mission
BRO
isn
establish
the separate non prot
that
it
suered
1 a
as an en ty pursuing overturn of Oregon
Marriage Equality or whatever the non prot
So
any actual members
social
of social
BRO
members
the net earnings
1
of
its
spend
and
organiza on
Immigraon Rev
had
959 F 2d
they otherwise would spend
other ways
In this
ini
S C 50
cons tu onal
irreducible
a problem that otherwise would not
28 F 3d 1268
more dicult
it
455
26
had not diverted resources to counterac ng the problem
it
on
and
used to determine whether an
behalf can establish
money xing
therefore had standing

to divert
is
Coleman 455
Combs 285 F 3d
Mktg Corp
threatened to make
money gh ng
own
its
mission
its
to spend
choosing
the same analysis
the
has standing under the Fair Housing Act
An organiza on suing on
the promo
person or persons
standing consists of these three elements
plain
there aren
as a 501 c
promo ng the common good and general welfare
Havens Realty Corp
a par cular case
for
of
e organiza ons
organized
is
opera ng exclusively
While the Lujan decision established
an
of
It
educa onal or recrea onal purposes
primarily engaged in
redressability
jusce
racial
to the employees of a designated
to charitable
exclusively
4 be
it
limited
is
and
transgender jus ce
but
essen ally using educa on to engag
is
on behalf
represents the amorphous LGB and arguably T Oregonians
marriage equality
corpora on
it
has organiza onal standing to raise cons tu onal challenge
a grassroots lobbying organiza on which
is
pla orms
501
BRO
that
to pursue the
ini
established
ave that
it
had to
to pursue the
divert
diversion
s
ini
cons tu o
a ve
resources
f its
nal
and 2 a frustra on
may just be
this
shouldn
if
we
a ven ng email
trying
come up
to
can make a cogent argument
consolidate
we
resources from BR
with an argument on
can use
it
in
Sent
Potter
Monday
Sheila
the cases
Katharine
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
Re
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
To
Subject
VON TER STEGGE

Lake
Perriguey
la
the response to consolidat
Lea Ann
From
why BRO
Motion
its
ban on same gender marriage
suppose they d argue that by crea ng
educa onal advocacy to the
aon
suppose
of
cks organiza onal standing
e as a reason why the court
Thanks
all
With respect to the other case

from a quick swing through
on behalf of
members
its
know
had brought
the case law
is
someone thinks
If
that
I
up the issue of standing
the Basic Rights plaintiff
m off
base on that
in
our
call last
week
My
always welcome pe ople pointing
initial
does have organizational
probably
take
standing
out that I might
be wrong about a thing
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On Dec
23
2013
Justice
1 14
at
PM
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
We
will
our answer today
file
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior
501
SE
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite 500
On Mon Dec
23 2013
communication
1 09
PM
com
any transaction
http
multco us
Lea Ann Easton
including
and purpose
with
including
penalties
multco us
dorsayindianlaw
may
any attachments
and
is
protected
by law
com
wrote
contain privileged
If
you are not the
or conf
in
IRS
regulations
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
we
is
Revenue
or the taking
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
idential
it
fied that
is
federal tax advice
strictly
you should delete
any disclosure
prohibited
contained in this
and cannot be u sed

marketing
tended recipient
To comply
communication
avoiding
97214
mailto LEaston
copying
Notice
at
dorsayindianlaw

this
OR
co multnomah or us
This communication
Notice
Portland
County Attorney
503 988 3377 fax
mailto katevts
LEaston
Multnomah
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
Sheila
Yes
that will
work
for the response to the
motion to consolidate
MSJ We
are looking at
new
complaint
today and possible responses to
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
From
LLP
SW
503 790 9060
tel
Potter Sheila
Monday
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Katharine
Re
Subject
VON TER STEGGE
Proposed Schedule
AG
doj state or us
doj state or us
PM
December 23 2013 1 06
Lake Perriguey
for
Summary Judgment Motion
we
and Governor
like
to have until
Feb 10 for the
MSJ
response
That work for
you
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On Dec
19
LEaston
2013
at
11 52
communication
including
and purpose
avoiding
any transaction
with
including
IRS
mailto LEaston
protected
is
or matter addressed
Motion
filed
for a
on 1 9 2014
Plaintiffs
regulations
Internal
Plaintiffs
by law
com
dorsayindianlaw
may
any attachments
and
or the taking
we
any attachments
under the
penalties
dorsayindianlaw
com
contain privileged
If
you are not the
3e
or conf
in
is
Code
Revenue
inform you that any
or
ii
promoting
3e
idential
fied that
it
strictly
is
federal tax advice
you should delete
any disclosure
prohibited
contained in this
and cannot be u sed

marketing
wrote
tended recipient
To comply
communication
Also
com
copying
is
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
Notice
Lea Ann Easton
com
This communication
Notice
Here
AM
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
this
Justice
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
We
Reponses
will
motion
after
the County
files
its
answer
wh
ich
we
anticipate
will
be on or
before 12 23 2013
Obviously
Lake and
Also
this
I
may be
today
ve attached
the
New
BRO
files
Jennifer Middleton
BRO
lead
counsel
has been calling
today
is
al
lowed under
state statutes
Lea Ann
Greigo v Oliver
NM
SCT
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
12192013 pdf
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Jennifer
Sent
12 24 2013 2 46 36
Subject
Questions
Have
The
the
State
only copy
is
Also
defendants
I
BREF
ve
seen
If
Thanks
father
the
And
the
who
the
Deputy
Chief
m not
at
my desk
out
to
and
If
It
behalf
latter
t
seem
you d rather
Lewis
get
hold
of
Justice
own
the
doesn
Dove
Counsel
of
on its
of
Potter
Department
or do you anticipate
asking
for a waiver
of
service
you e mailed
36
for standing
Trial Division
Oregon
one
standing
holidays
Sheila
served
basis
are in and
PM
on Rummell complaint
by Measure
most reliable way

happy
Middleton
been
is
asserting
individuals affected
outlining
Sheila
me
and
and
only
can
or also on behalf
you give
to
have
call
pop
OHSU
will
me a call
of
those
or send
me an email
members as such
me an email
respectively
be for a little
these
ve
days
while
got
a cat
so the
and
iPhone
a
is
From
Potter Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
To
Sent
12 24 2013 3 33 03
Subject
RE
PM
Proposed Schedule
The silence is me reading
cases
for
rather
than
stony disagreement
You probably figured
that
out
From
Lea Ann Easton
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent
Tuesday
December 24
2013 9 45 AM
To
Potter Sheila H
Subject
RE
Proposed Schedule for Summary Judgment Motion
Sheila
I m not convinced that BRO has organizational standing to raise constitution
al challenges on behalf of its
members
BRO doesn
t have members
it represents the amorphous
LGB and arguably T Oregonians but there
aren t any actual members
BRO is a grassroots lobbying organization which is essentially using education
to
engage organizations in its three platforms
marriage equality
transgender justice
and racial justice
It
4
social welfare
non profit corporation
which means it is a civic organization
is organized as a 501 c
operating exclusively for the promotion of social we lfare
the membership of which is limited to the
employees of a designated person or persons
and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to
educational
or recreational purposes
26 U S C
501
The statute requires that a 501 c
4
be
charitable
primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community
Id
The
and
constitutional
minimum of standing
3
redressability
While the
consists of these three
elements
injury in fact
causation
Lujan http
web2 westlaw com find default wl rs WLW13 10 pbc B9853355 vr 2 0findtype Yrp
2ffind 2fdefaul
t wl sv Split fn
top tf
1 ordoc 2023450446 mt 73 serialnum 1992106162 tc
1
decision established the
irreducible constitutional
minimum
test for standing in the context of an individual plaintiff
the same
analysis is used to determine whether an organizational plaintiff
has standing in a particular case
Havens
Realty Corp
v
Coleman
455 U S
363
378
102 S Ct
1114
71 L Ed 2d 214
http
web2 westlaw com find default wl mt 73 db 708 tc
1982
1 rp
2ffind 2fdefault wlfindtype Yordoc 2023450446 serialnum 1982108985 vr 2 0 fn
top sv Split tf
1 pbc B9853355 rs WLW13 10
In determining whether HOME has standing under the Fair Housing Act
we
conduct the same inquiry as in the case of an individual
An organization suing on its own behalf can establish an injury when it suffered
both a diversion of its
resources and a frustration of its mission
Combs
285 F 3d at
905
http
web2 westlaw co m find default wl mt 73 db 506 tc
1 rp
top sv Split tf
S pbc B9853355 referenceposition 905 rs WLW13 10 It cannot manufacture the injury by incurrin
g litigation costs
or simply choosing to spend money fixing a problem that otherwise would not affect the organization at all
See
e g
Fair Employment Council v
BMC Mktg
Corp
28 F 3d 1268
1276
77
D C Cir 1994
http
web2 westlaw com find default
wl mt 73 db 506 tc
1 rp
top sv Split tf
1 referencepositiontype
Spbc B9853355 referenceposition 1276 rs WLW13 10
It must instead show that it
would have suffered some oth er injury if it had not diverted resources to counteracting
the problem
In
Havens
http
web2 westlaw com find default wl rs WLW13 10 pbc B9853355 vr 2 0findtype Yrp
2ffind 2fdefa
ult wlsv Split fn
top tf
1 ordoc 2023450446 mt 73 serialnum 198210898
5tc
1
for example
housing
discrimination threatened to make it more difficult
for HOME to counsel people on where they might live if
the organization didn t spend money fighting it
455 U S
at 379
102 S Ct
1114
http
web2 westlaw com find default
wl mt 73 db 708 tc
1 rp
top sv Split tf
1 pbc B9853355 rs WLW13 10
The organization could not avoid suffering one injury or the other
and
therefore had standing to sue
Cf
Smith v
Pacific Props
Dev
Corp
358 F 3d 1097
1105
9th
Cir 2004
http
web2 westlaw com find default wl mt 73 db 506 tc
1 rp
top sv Split tf
1 referencepositionty
pe Spbc B9853355 referenceposition 1105 rs WLW13 10
organization
had
to divert
its scarce resources from other efforts
El Rescate Legal Servs
Inc
v
Exec
Office of Immigration
Rev
959 F 2d 742
748
9th Cir 1992
http
web2 westlaw com fi
nd default wl mt 73 db 350 tc
1 rp
top sv Split tf
Spbc B9853355 referenceposition 748 rs WLW13 10
challenged policy
require d
the
organizations to expend resources
they otherwise would spend in other ways
In this instance
wonder
whether
BRO can
establish
that
it
suffered 1
a diversion
of its
resources
and
2
a frustration of its mission
For example
BRO isn
t as an entity pursuing o verturn of Oregon
s
constitutional
Marriage Equality
or whatever the non profit established to
pursue the initiative
I suppose they
d argue that by creating the separate non profit to pursue the
initiative that it had to div ert resources from BRO s educational advocacy
to the initiation
So
this may just be a venting email
trying to come up with an argument on why BRO lacks organizational
standing
I suppose if we can make a cogent argument
we can use it in the response t
o consolidate as a
reason why the court shouldn
t consolidate the cases
Lea
Ann
From
Potter Sheila H
mailto sheila potter doj state or us
Monday
December 23
2013 1 21 PM
Sent
To
Katharine VON TER STEGGE
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Re
Proposed Schedule for Summary Judgment Motion
Subject
Thanks
With
all
respect
that the
to the
other
Basic Rights
thinks
case
know
had brought
up
the
issue of
standing
in
our
call
last
week
My
initial
take
the
case law
is
probably does have organizational standing on behalf of its members

If someone
on that
I always welcome people pointing out that I might be wrong about a thing
plaintiff
m off base
Sheila H
Potter
Trial Division
Oregon Department of Justice
On Dec 23
2013
at 1 14 PM
katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us
mailto katevts
wrote
That
deadline
Kate
von
Senior
Ter
works for us
We
will
file
multco us
mailto katevts
multco us 3e 3e
our answer today
Stegge
Assistant County
501
SE Hawthorne
503
988 3138
Suite
Attorney
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
County Attorney
OR 97214
fax
katevts
mailto katevts co multnomah or us multco us mailto katevts
ultco us
http
multco us 3e
On Mon
Dec 23
2013 at 1 09 PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3e
wrote
com
co multnomah or us 3emultc
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
o us
http
com
mailto

may contain privileged or confidential information
Notice
This communication
intended for a specific individual and purpose
If you are not the intended
recipient
you should
delete this
communication
any disclosure
copying
strictly prohibited
and
or
shred the
or distribution
Notice 2
communication

and are hereby notified that
of this communication
or the taking of any action based on it
is
we inform you tha t any U S

federal tax advice
and cannot be used
i
another party any transaction or matter addressed
Code or
herein
ii
promoting
contained
in this
for the purpose of
to
Sheila
Yes
that
responses
Lea
will work for the response

to motion to consolidate
to the MSJ
We
are
looking
at new
complaint
today and possible
Ann
Dorsay
Easton LLP
Suite 440
1 SW Columbia
Portland
OR 97258
503 790 9060 tel 503 790 9060
Potter Sheila H
From
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter
r us 3e
Sent
Monday
December 23
2013 1 06 PM
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Lake Perriguey
Re
Subject
Given the demands on the AG and Governor
for you
doj state or us
doj state
Motion
we d like to have
until
Feb
10 for the MSJ
response
That work
Sheila H
Potter
Trial Division
On Dec 19
2013
at 11 52 AM
Lea Ann Easton
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw com
mailto
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3e
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3e 3e
wrote
e
This communication
may contain privileged or confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose
If you are not the intended
recipient
you should delete this communication and or shred the mate
rials and any attachments
and are
Notice
hereby
action
notified that any disclosure

copying
based on it
is strictly prohibited
or distribution
of this communication
or the taking
of any
Notice 2
f ederal tax advice contained
in this
communication
and cannot be used
for the purpose of
i
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
ii
promoting
to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein
Here
is our proposed
Plaintiffs
State
Motion
schedule
filed
on 1 9 2014
and County Defendants
Plaintiffs
Reply
for a summary
Reponses
due on or before
Also I ve
statutes
Lea
attached
the New
will
motion
be asking
for expe
dited
hearing
conference
after the County
files
by whatever BRO files

Jennifer Middleton
ve filed the complaint today
Mexico
on the motion
2 13 2014
Also
the Court will set a scheduling
be on or before 12 23 2013
Obviously this may be affected
calling Lake and I today
they
We
judgment
Supreme
Court decision
affirming
its
answer which
BRO
s lead
we anticipate
counsel
will
has been
gay marriage is allowed under
state
Ann
Greigo v Oliver
NM SCT 12192013
CONFIDENTIALITY
pdf
NOTICE
This e mail may contain information that is privileged

confidential
or otherwise exempt from disclosure
under applicable law
If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have
received this e mail in error
please advise me immediately by reply e mail
keep the contents confidential
and
immediately
delete the
message
and any attachments
rom your system
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
12 24 2013 3 48 35
Subject
Re
Go Home
On Dec
The
2013
silence is
From
Sent
To
24
Christmas
It
3 33
at
Potter
PM
Schedule
am
Eve
PM
Potter Sheila
mailto
cases
for
puzzling
still
Summary Judgment
over
as well
it
sheila
Motion
potter
You probably gured
rather than stony disagreement
LEaston
wrote
doj state or us
that out
com
dorsayindianlaw
Tuesday
Sheila
Subject
Proposed
me reading
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
RE Proposed Schedule
for
Summary Judgment
Motion
Sheila
m not
doesn
BRO
convinced
has organiza onal standing to raise cons tu onal challenge
which means
membership
devoted
of
which
is
The cons tu onal minimum of
context
individual
HOME
whether
frustra
on
of
BMC
Council v
other injury if
it
742 748 9th

in
own
it
Cir
1992
S C 50
at
S at 379
to sue
Cf
for
an
905
It
injury
when
suered
it
1994
It
aect
policy
Dev
Props
from other eorts
challenged
Ed 2d 214 1982
must instead show

Havens
iversion of
El
Rescate
require d the
Legal Servs
Inc
Id
that
at
its
standing
In
individual
and a
resources
ga on costs or simply
li
See
all
e g
Fair
Employment
would have suered
it
some
example housing discrimina on
liv
if
the organiza on didn
one
injury
or the other
9th Cir 2004
Oce of
Exec
organiza ons to expend resources
in
determining
for
358 F 3d 1097 1105
Corp
standing in the
test for
the organiza o
to counsel people on where they might
Pacic
which are
organiza onal plain has
102 S Ct 1114 The organiza on could not avoid suering

Smith v
of
2 causa on and 3
minimum
both a d
In
the
statute requires that
cannot manufacture the injury by incurring
Cir
welfare
the same inquiry as in the case of an
conduct
non prot
welfare
people of the community
the
363 378 102 S Ct 1114 71
we
1276 77 D C
HOME
of
three
its
the net earnings
The
injury in fact
cons tu onal
irreducible
a problem that otherwise would not
28 F 3d 1268
scarce resources
instance
mission
wonder whether BRO can
For example
BRO
isn
establish
the separate non prot
that
it
suered
1 a
as an en ty pursuing overturn of Oregon
Marriage Equality or whatever the non prot
So
and
26
in
social
of social
BRO
members
any actual members
spend
and
organiza on
Immigraon Rev
had
959 F 2d
they otherwise would spend
other ways
In this
ini
person or persons
used to determine whether an
behalf can establish
more dicult
455
on
its
e organiza ons
the promo
had not diverted resources to counterac ng the problem
it
its
is
Coleman 455
Combs 285 F 3d
Mktg Corp
therefore had standing

to divert
the
established
the same analysis
money xing
threatened to make
money gh ng
its
mission
its
to spend
choosing
plain
has standing under the Fair Housing Act
An organiza on suing on
for
standing consists of these three elements
Havens Realty Corp
a par cular case
opera ng exclusively
of
there aren
as a 501 c
organized
is
promo ng the common good and general welfare
While the Lujan decision
an
of
It
educa onal or recrea onal purposes
primarily engaged in
redressability
jusce
racial
to the employees of a designated
limited
is
and
a civic organiza on
to charitable
exclusively
4 be
it
but
essen ally using educa on to engag
is
transgender jus ce
on behalf
represents the amorphous LGB and arguably T Oregonians
marriage equality
corpora on
it
a grassroots lobbying organiza on which
is
pla orms
501
BRO
that
have members
to pursue the
ini
established
ave that
it
had to
to pursue the
divert
diversion
s
ini
a ve
resources
f its
cons tu o
nal
and 2 a frustra on
suppose
may just be
if
we
a ven ng email
trying
to
can make a cogent argument
come up
we
with an argument on
can use
it
in
why BRO
its
suppose they d argue that by crea ng
resources from BR
educa onal advocacy to the
aon
this
of
la
the response to consolidat
cks organiza onal standing
e as a reason why the court
shouldn
consolidate
the cases
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Sheila
To
Katharine
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
VON TER STEGGE
Re
Thanks
Monday
Lake
Perriguey
Motion
all
With respect to the other case

on behalf of
members
its
If
know
had brought
the case law
is
someone thinks
that
I
up the issue of standing
the Basic Rights plaintiff
m off
base on that
in
our
call last
week
My
initial
does have organizational
probably
always welcome pe ople pointing
take
standing
out that I might
be wrong about a thing
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On Dec
23
2013
at
Justice
1 14
PM
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
We
will
our answer today
file
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior
501
SE
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
LEaston
23 2013
at
1 09
This communication
communication
copying
OR
97214
co multnomah or us
dorsayindianlaw

this
Portland
County Attorney
503 988 3377 fax
mailto katevts
On Mon Dec
Notice
Suite 500
Multnomah
PM
com
multco us
http
multco us
Lea Ann Easton

mailto LEaston
including
and purpose
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
and
is
protected
may
by law
com
wrote
contain privileged
If
you are not the
or conf
in
or the taking
idential
tended recipient
it
fied that
is
strictly
you should delete
any disclosure
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
with
including
we
regulations
any attachments
under the
penalties
any transaction
IRS
Internal
or matter addressed
is
inform you that any
Code
Revenue
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
contained in this
and cannot be u sed
for the purpose of
or recommending
marketing
to another
party
herein
Sheila
Yes
work
that will
for the response to the
MSJ We
are looking at
new
today and possible responses to
complaint
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
From
LLP
SW
503 790 9060
tel
Potter Sheila
Monday
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Katharine
Re
Subject
VON TER STEGGE
Proposed Schedule
AG
doj state or us
doj state or us
PM
December 23 2013 1 06
Lake Perriguey
for
we
and Governor
like
to have until
Feb 10 for the
MSJ
response
That work for
you
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On Dec
19
LEaston
2013
at
11 52
communication
com
including
and purpose
protected
is
avoiding
any transaction
with
including
penalties
IRS
regulations
Internal
or matter addressed
Motion
by law
filed
for a
on 1 9 2014
or the taking
we
any attachments
under the
Plaintiffs
dorsayindianlaw
may
any attachments
and
com
com
contain privileged
If
you are not the
3e
or conf
in
is
Revenue
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
3e
idential
it
fied that
is
federal tax advice
strictly
will
you should delete
any disclosure
prohibited
for the purpose of
or recommending
herein
We
contained in this
and cannot be u sed

marketing
wrote
tended recipient
To comply
communication
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
copying
is
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
Here
Lea Ann Easton
com
This communication
Notice
Notice
AM
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
this
Justice
motion
to another
party
Plaintiffs
Also
Reponses
after
the County
files
its
answer
wh
ich
we
anticipate
will
be on or
before 12 23 2013
Obviously
Lake and
Also
this
I
may be
today
ve attached
BRO
the
New
files
Jennifer Middleton
BRO
lead
counsel
has been calling
today
is
al
lowed under
state statutes
Lea Ann
Greigo v Oliver
NM
SCT
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
12192013 pdf
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
12 24 2013 11 33 08
Subject
Rummel v
Sheila
H
PM
Kitz
Sheila
Has
the State been served with the
found
this tid
bit
Rummel
case
addressing premature requests for consolidation
the defendant has not as yet answered herein
Since
consolidate
prematurely
Duval v
for
purposes this action with another
trial
made and
DC
Bathrick
Lake James
and the cause

action
by the court
Min 31 F Supp 510 511
now
at this
is
not at issue
he motion of the
pending in the fourth division
to
plaintiff
of this court
is
time
1940
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 25 2013 9 29 22
Subject
Measure 36
Read the
http
first
www
few arguments
oregonvotes
in
AM
Arguments
in
favor of Measure
org pages
Favor
36 from 2003
history archive nov22004
These
will
guide meas
go over well with Judge McShane
m36
fav html
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 25 2013 9 40 16
Subject
Re Measure 36
HA
Beaver
State
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Defense
Sheila
of
PM
Arguments
Beaver
is
in
Favor
definitely my favorite
of
the
organizations
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
25
Dec
2013
of
at
Justice
9 29 AM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
wrote
Read
Judge
http
the
first
few arguments
in favor
of
Measure
36 from 2003
These
will
go over
McShane
www
oregonvotes
org pages
history archive
nov22004
guide
meas
m36 fav
html
well
with
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 25 2013 9 40 36
Subject
Re Rummel v
Don
believe
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
we
have
Sheila
PM
Kitz
no
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
24
Dec
2013
of
at
Justice
11 33 PM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
wrote
Sheila
Has
I
the
State
found
Since
of
served
bit
fourth
to
with the
addressing
defendant
plaintiff
in the
at
this tid
the
the
been
has not
of
premature
case
requests
as yet answered
consolidate
division
Rummel
for trial
this court
is
herein
purposes
prematurely
for consolidation
and
the
cause
this action
made
and
is
not
at
with another
cannot
issue
action
be considered
the
now
motion
pending
by the
court
this time
Duval
Lake
Law
Bathrick
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
227
1928
334
2340
skype
lagojaime
PLEASE DON
works
law
Guardian
1940
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
511
Street
Oregon
www
This
510
Perriguey
http
OTLA
Supp
LLC
Portland
T
DC Min 31 F
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
12 25 2013 10 04 52
Subject
Re Rummel v
Can
Lake
Law
take
you to
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
com
Civil
PRINT
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
recipient
works
Don
25
t
delete
2013
at
believe
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
we
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com and
Dec
or Friday
97205
227
skype
On
Thursday
Street
Oregon
www
This
PM
Kitz
Perriguey
http
OTLA
LLC
Portland
T
lunch
Sheila
the
sender
or privileged
immediately
this e mail and

9 40 PM
have
Potter
all
copies
Sheila
information
by return
and
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
the
to
intended
lake
law
attachments
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
no
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
24
Dec
works
2013
com
of
at
Justice
11 33 PM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
Sheila
Has
I
the
State
found
Since
this tid
the
motion of
pending
the
Lake
Law
fourth
James H
SW
503
503
Madison
227
1928
334
2340
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
as yet answered
consolidate
division
of
DC Min 31 F
herein
for trial
this court
is
for consolidation
and
purposes
the
cause
is
this action
prematurely
made
and
not
at
issue
with another
cannot
the
action
be considered
now
by
Supp
510
511
1940
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
please notify
com mailto
lake
law
www
law
works
com
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
recipient
works
to
requests
Street
Oregon
www
This
has not
premature
case
Perriguey
http
OTLA
addressing
Rummel
LLC
Portland
T
with the
this time
Bathrick
Works
1906
bit
plaintiff
in the
at
served
defendant
the
court
Duval
been
RESOURCES
confidential
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
lake
intended
law
attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
NOTICE
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 26 2013 10 21 36
Subject
RE Rummel
Well
you cannot
happy
to
of
meet
various
take
hospitals
and
in the
I
s a little
at
sense of
think
this month
for tomorrow
AM
Kitz
lunch
you for lunch
so everything
calendar
me to
both
up in the
buying lunch
Friday would
work
are in hospital
air
all
the
time
My
today
But
state
rules
cat
and
and
don
dad
m not
have
but
d be very
are both
in and
sure about
anything
out
tomorrow
on the
lunchtime
Original Message
From
Lake
Sent
Wednesday
To
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
Can
Lake
Law
Sheila
Re
take
1906
SW
503
503
you to
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
Kitz
lunch
Thursday
works
of
Civil
PRINT
Justice
CONSERVE
Don
25
t
delete
2013
at
believe
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
we
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com and
Dec
or Friday
com
e mail may contain
recipient
On
97205
227
skype
works
com
Street
Oregon
www
This
works
10 05 PM
Perriguey
http
OTLA
law
2013
LLC
Portland
T
lake
25
Rummel
James H
Works
mailto
December
the
sender
or privileged
immediately
this e mail and

9 40 PM
have
Potter
all
copies
Sheila
information
by return
and
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
the
to
intended
lake
law
attachments
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
no
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
24
Dec
works
2013
com
of
at
Justice
11 33 PM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
Sheila
Has
I
the
State
found
Since
this tid
the
motion of
pending
the
Lake
Law
1906
503
fourth
with the
addressing
has not
plaintiff
to
Rummel
premature
requests
as yet answered
consolidate
division
case
of
herein
for trial
this court
is
DC Min 31 F
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Street
Oregon
227
1928
97205
Supp
510
511
for consolidation
and
purposes
the
1940
cause
this action
prematurely
this time
James H
SW
bit
Bathrick
Works
Portland
T
at
served
defendant
the
in the
court
Duval
been
made
and
is
not
at
issue
with another
cannot
the
action
be considered
now
by
503
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
please notify
com mailto
lake
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
the
sender
works
or privileged
immediately
com
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
lake
intended
law
attachments
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
law
www
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
12 26 2013 10 32 55
Subject
Re Rummel v
We
Great
can keep
it
flex
what time works for you and
www
http
On Dec
and
lunch
2013
hospital
can make rezzies

I
you
will collect
at
AM
10 21
me
Potter
clark Lewis for anytime between 11
at
in
front of your office
and
today
Sheila
sheila
potter
to lunch in the sense of buying lunch
work
think Friday would
m not
My
45 and 1 15 Let
me know
building
at
doj state or us
state rules
wrote
but I d
be very happy to meet you for
cat and dad are both in and out of various hospitals this month
sure about tomorrow
on the calendar for tomorrow
anything
AM
Kitz
law works com
you cannot take
Well
in
26
Sheila
so everything
little
up
in
the air
all
the time
But
both are
I
don
have
lunchtime
Original Message
From Lake
To
Perriguey
Wednesday
Sent
Potter
Can
Sheila
Re
Subject
mailto lake
law works com
December 25 2013 10 05
PM
Rummel v
Kitz
take you to lunch Thursday or Friday
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
PLEASE
Civil
Justice
DON T PRINT
This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
and attachments
On Dec
25
2013
at
9 40
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
Don
we
believe
Sheila
Deputy
have
no
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Trial
On Dec
24
2013
at
Justice
PM
11 33
Lake Perriguey
law works com
lake
mailto lake
law works com
wrote
Sheila
Has
the State been served with the
found
this tid
Rummel
case
addressing premature requests for consolidation
bit
the defendant has not as yet answered herein
Since
consolidate
prematurely
Duval v
for
purposes this action with another
trial
made and
DC
Bathrick
Lake James
and the cause

action
by the court
Min 31 F Supp 510 511
now
at this
is
not at issue
he motion of the
pending in the fourth division
plaintiff
of this court
to
is
time
1940
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
PLEASE
Civil
may
law works com
Justice
DON T PRINT
This e mail
www
http
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information

delete this e mail and
all
may
law works com
ntended recipient
mailto lake
please notify
law works com
and
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
you are not the
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
lake
If
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 26 2013 11 34 14
Subject
RE Rummel
Let
s say you pick
me up at
AM
Kitz
12 30
and
ll
let
you know
if
any emergencies
make
it
impossible
From
Lake
Sent
Thursday
To
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
Great
We
1 15
Sheila
Re
26
lake
law
2013
10 33 AM
works
com
Rummel
can
Let
mailto
December
keep
me know
Kitz
it
flex
what
can
make
time works
rezzies at
for you and
clark
will
Lewis
collect
for anytime between

you in front
of
11 45 and
your office
building
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
0 0
2340
tel
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
26
works
of
Civil
2013
potter
to
503
20334
2340
www
me to
Potter
lunch
Sheila
com
and
s a little
at
both
potter
sense of
think
up in the
sheila
in the
this month
for tomorrow
works
RESOURCES
or us mailto
you for lunch
hospitals
law
Justice
10 21 AM
take
so everything
calendar
1928
CONSERVE
at
happy
various
20227
doj state
you cannot
meet
503
com http
PRINT
Well
of
0 0
detectors
334
lagojaime
Dec
detectors
data
tel
skype
sheila
data
x apple
1928
www
On
x apple
97205
227
http
OTLA
Street
Oregon
doj state
Friday would
work
are in hospital
air
all
the
or us
buying lunch
time
My
today
But
wrote
state
rules
cat
and
and
don
dad
m not
have
but
d be very
are both
in and
sure about
anything
on the
lunchtime
Original Message
From
Lake
Sent
Wednesday
To
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
Can
Lake
Law
Sheila
Re
take
1906
SW
503
503
you to
Madison
227
1928
334
2340
skype
lagojaime
PLEASE DON
Kitz
lunch
Thursday
Dec
25
or Friday
97205
works
of
com
Civil
PRINT
Justice
CONSERVE
2013
potter
believe
lake
at
law
the
have
no
sender
works
9 40 PM
doj state
we
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
sheila
Don
e mail may contain
works
On
law
Guardian
recipient
com
Street
Oregon
www
This
works
10 05 PM
Perriguey
http
OTLA
law
2013
LLC
Portland
T
lake
25
Rummel
James H
Works
mailto
December
or privileged
immediately
com
Potter
and
delete
Sheila
or us mailto
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
to
and
the
intended
lake
out
tomorrow
law
attachments
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
On
24
Dec
mailto
2013
lake
of
at
law
Justice
11 33 PM
works
Lake
com
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
wrote
Sheila
Has
I
the
State
found
Since
of
served
bit
fourth
to
with the
addressing
defendant
plaintiff
in the
at
this tid
the
the
been
has not
of
premature
case
requests
as yet answered
consolidate
division
Rummel
for trial
this court
is
for consolidation
herein
purposes
and
the
cause
this action
prematurely
made
and
is
not
at
with another
cannot
issue
the
action
be considered
now
motion
pending
by the
court
this time
Duval
Lake
Law
Bathrick
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
http
OTLA
227
1928
334
2340
law
97205
works
com http
www
law
works
com
http
www
law
works
com 3chttp
www
law
lagojaime
of
Civil
PRINT
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
recipient
works
and
lake
law
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
mailto
information
by return
lake
law
works
If
you are not
e mail with a copy

com
and
delete
the
to
intended
lake
law
this e mail and
all
NOTICE
e mail may contain

under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
the
attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
disclosure
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
copies
This
1940
3e
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
511
Street
Oregon
com
skype
510
Perriguey
Madison
www
works
Supp
LLC
Portland
T
DC Min 31 F
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Jennifer
To
Potter
CC
kdiaz
Sent
12 26 2013 12 01 12
Subject
Re
Middleton
Sheila
aclu or org
Questions
Rsaxe
aclu org
MIsaak
com TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
PM
Hi Sheila
So
sorry to
We
do not
service
abut
correct
that
standing
better
their
way
to
you and you should receive
not a membership organization
It
by the existence and enforcement

its
is
asserting
of
standing
Measure 36
If
on
its
own
we need
thus the allegations
behalf
we
to
will
also assert
that
has
it
constitutents
Schaller
PC
1050
Ste
Street
OR 97401
Eugene
683 2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
If
hope they are both doing
The Summons and Complaint are on
Middleton
975 Oak
is
cat
d tomorrow
the interests of
to assert
Jennifer
BREF
has been harmed
it
Johnson Johnson
541
ORCP 7D 2
to
how
seek a waiver of service
to
pursuant
You are
and your
hear about your father

intend
NOTICE
This message
Potter
Have
Sheila
sheila
the State defendants
may
contain
doj state or us
potter
been served
or
confidential
please delete
do you
and
it
communications
notify
protected
the sender
12 24 13 2 47 PM
anticipate
asking for a waiver of service
The only copy
ve seen
is
the one
you e mailed
Also
is
BREF
Thanks
If
Lewis and
me
not at
OHSU
on
standing
asserting
can you give
latter
my
call
or
own behalf only or also on behalf

me an email outlining the basis for
its
send
desk and you d rather
respectively
these days
call
pop me an email
so the iPhone
is
of
those individuals
standing
It
doesn
affected
t
seem
to
by Measure 36
who are in and out

me and will be for a
ve got a cat and a father
the most reliable way to get hold of
the
If
have members as such
of
Dove
little
while
And happy
Sheila
Deputy
holidays
Potter
Chief
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department
of Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
If
may
contain
NOTICE
information that
advise
me immediately
attachments
it
is
privileged
confidential
appears from the context
by reply e mail keep the contents
from your system
or
or
otherwise
otherwise
confidential
that
ex empt from disclosure
under applicable
you have received this e mail in error
and immediatel y
delete
law
please
the message and any
From
Jennifer
To
Potter
CC
KDiaz
Sent
12 26 2013 12 11 57
Subject
Re
So
somehow
sorry
constituents
standing in
asserting
relying
aclu or org
sent on that last email when
own
behalf
on Hunt v
If
on
this
some time
re getting
we need
Washington
off
can
MIsaak
com TRJohnson
perkinscoie
own
its
was halfway through
we
to
think
behalf
provide
if
Com n
you
standing
432
US
to
333
as
com
perkinscoie
1977
BREF
said
will
find that
you with more authorities but
it
is
is
primarily
Measure 36 on behalf of
challenge
its
and Oregon Advocacy Center
the Complaintwith an eye toward
you review
though
In any event
BREF
also assert
will
State Apple Advertising
2003
Cir
BREF on
for
III
aclu org
PM
hit
you have more questions
hope you
RSaxe
Questions
322 F 3d 1101 1109 12 9th
Mink
its
requirements of Article
Middleton
Sheila
not subject
to
away from the
meeting the
challenge
office
Let
me know
if
next week
until
as well
Jennifer
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
683 2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
If
PC
1050
OR 97401
Eugene
541
Schaller
Ste
Street
NOTICE
This message
Potter
Have
Sheila
sheila
the State defendants
may
contain
doj state or us
potter
been served
or
confidential
please delete
do you
and
it
communications
notify
protected
the sender
12 24 13 2 47 PM
anticipate
asking for a waiver of service
The only copy
ve seen
is
the one
you e mailed
Also
is
BREF
Thanks
If
Lewis and
me
not at
OHSU
on
standing
asserting
can you give
latter
my
call
or
own behalf only or also on behalf

me an email outlining the basis for
its
send
desk and you d rather
respectively
these days
call
pop me an email
so the iPhone
is
of
those individuals
standing
It
doesn
affected
t
seem
to
by Measure 36
who are in and out

me and will be for a
ve got a cat and a father
the most reliable way to get hold of
the
If
have members as such
of
Dove
little
while
And happy
Sheila
Deputy
holidays
Potter
Chief
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department
of Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
If
may
contain
NOTICE
information that
advise
me immediately
attachments
it
is
privileged
confidential
by reply e mail keep the contents
from your system
or
or
otherwise
otherwise
confidential
that
under applicable
and immediatel y
delete
law
please
the message and any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
12 27 2013 12 35 27
Subject
Utah seeks outside
http
m sltrib
http
www
com
sltrib
Sheila
mobile3 57319426
law works com
AM
help in request for gay marriage stay
219 court stay utah
state
html csp
The
Salt
Lake Tribune
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 27 2013 9 03 55
Subject
Lunch today won
Not feeling well

office
lunch
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
meds
and
office
Sheila
the
I
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
Justice
cat
AM
work
needs
m going
to
meds
work
at
at
1 00
home
so rather
today
than
Sorry
trying
to
pack
in
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
12 27 2013 9 45 30
Subject
Re Lunch
Ahh
take
Perhaps
Lake
Law
care
of
noonish
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
com
Civil
PRINT
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
recipient
27
delete
2013
at
lunch
meds
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief
the
or privileged
sender
immediately
this e mail and

9 03 AM
Not feeling well

office
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com and
Dec
your friend
week
97205
227
lagojaime
On
work
Street
Oregon
skype
works
Perriguey
www
This
AM
today won
your self and

next
http
OTLA
LLC
Portland
T
Sheila
and
office
Potter
the
I
cat
all
copies
Sheila
needs
m going
to
and
sheila
meds
work
information
by return
at
at
1 00
home
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
the
to
intended
lake
law
attachments
potter
doj state
so rather
today
than
or us
trying
wrote
to
pack
in
Sorry
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
Justice
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
12 31 2013 12 45 00
Subject
Response
to
Motion
to
Consolidate
Attachments
Response
to
Motion
to
Consolidate
Sheila
This communication
Notice
intended
recipient
for
including
specific
To comply
communication
purpose
of
including
recommending
docx
may
and purpose
communication
and
we
any attachments
party
is
not intended
any transaction
by law
protected
you are not the
If
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
to
to another
contain
is strictly
IRS regulations
with
avoiding
that
it
LAE
any attachments
this
notified
Notice 2
PM
individual
you should delete
and are hereby
attachments
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
Sheila
Attached
case
We
is
We
the response to the Motion to Consolidate filed by the
will
be
editing
have not discussed
position
Thanks
on
in
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Portland
and
preparing to
SW
Columbia
OR 97258
503 790 9060
file
the state defendants
behalf of your clients
advance
Suite 440 1
if
it
and
it
on
will
are at liberty
Rummell
or before Friday
be weighing
to share
it
in
on
plaintiffs
in
Geiger
et al v
Kitzhaber
et al
th
January 4
the motion to
with us prior to
Friday
consolidate
please
let
or not
If
us know
you have a
Lake James
lake
OSB No
Perriguey
983213
works com
law
LAW WORKS LLC

Portland
OR
Telephone
97205 1718
503
503
Facsimile
334 2340
OSB No
Lea Ann Easton

leaston
227 1928
DORSAY EASTON
1
SW
Columbia Street
Portland
OR
Telephone
LLP
Suite 440
97204
503
503
Facsimile
881413
com
dorsayindianlaw
790 9060
790 9068

DISTRICT OF
EUGENE
OREGON
DIVISION

Case
No
6 13 cv 01834
MC
WILLIAM GRIESAR
PLAINTIFFS GEIGER
DUEHMIG
Plaintiffs
NELSON
GRIESAR S
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
v
CONSOLIDATE
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his official
of Oregon
ROSENBLUM
in
her official
WOODWARD
State Registrar
in
Multnomah
capacity
as
JENNIFER
her official
capacity as
Center for Health Statistics
WALRUFF
capacity
ELLEN
and
in his official
RANDY
capacity as
County Assessor
Defendants
Page 1
Response
to Motion to Consolidate
Plaintiffs
case with
Plaintiffs
and Robert Duehmig and William Gries ar
by and through
Plaintiffs
this
Deanna
Rummell
et
undersigned counsel
al v
Kitzhaber
Case
oppose the Motion to Consolidate
likelihood that the proposed consolidation
file
this
Response
to the Motion to Consolidate
No Unknown
As
based on the advanced
will
explained herein
status
delay the resolution
of their case and the
of their case
Background
Plaintiffs
complaint
filed
its
initial
complaint
on October 16
Dk
Counsel for
on December 4 2013
Rosenblum and Woodward
Kitzhaber
agreed to waive discovery
Dkt
State
on December
Plaintiffs
defendants
7 November
13 2013
answer to the amended complaint on December 23 2013
State defendants and defendant Walruff
plaintiffs
schedule
for
summary judgment
summary judgment
and Walruff
reply
if
will
file
their
and an amended
and Counsel for Defendants

1
conferred and
State Defendants filed their answer to
10
Defendant Walruff
Dk
13
filed his
Additionally
counsel for
have conferred and agreed to the following
proceedings to expeditiously
Plaintiffs
ex pedited review on or before January 9
responses on or before February 10
2014
and
will
2014
file
a motion for
defendants State
plaintiffs
will
file
their
any on or before February 24 2014
1
Plaintiffs
now
requesting
and Defendant Walruff
2013
Dk
Dk
2013
corrected
Page 2
misspelled Defendant Randy Walruff
in this
pleading and regret this error
Response
surname
in
our
initial
filings
and have
Rummell
filed their
defendants in
Rummell
Additionally
the complai nt filed by
et
al
complaint
prior to any answer being filed by
well beyond
complaint
on Decembe
complaint
19 2013
on the defendants on or about December 30
complaint
their
et al
are required
Rummell
et
to
2013
and apparently have served
Thus
an answer
file
is
the earliest any of the
2014
February
may
al raises legal issues which
defendants and likely will delay consideration
require motions
of the
complaint
plaintiffs
Argument
Fed
fact
may
court
order consolidation
Civ P 42 a
877 F 2d 777
that
United
Consolidation
preparedness
Mills v
may be
if
denied
Fisher v
2
It
Plaintiffs
plaintiffs
it
may be
will
is
Inc
not clear
704
however
The
is
not unfettered
See Johnson v
court should weigh the time and effort
or expense
delay
it
would cause
where cases are
886 F 2d 758
762
at different
5th Cir 1989
2011
WL
FRD
655
311014
why Rummell
EDNY
DC
et al
Rummell the American
1967
Cal 2011
delayed filing
Civil Liberties
Civil
Liberties
See also
Cases
their
at
US
complaint
different
until
Plaintiff
and
stages of
cases
Rubber Recycling Inv
completely
Union of Oregon
Union about
2013
Response
See
Consolidation
cause delay in the processing of one or more of the individual
cases
Court for Cent Dis
stages of
December
counsel has been in contact with representatives of Basic Rights Oregon

in
of law or
to consolidate
United States Dist
properly denied in instances
Rights Oregon and the American
Page 3
question
9th Cir 1984
Beech Aircraft Corp
Donbar Development
Encore Intern
Co
2d Cir 1990
743 F 2d 703
States
common
a court has broad discretion
Such discretion
1285
involve a
would save against any inconvenience
consolidation
Huene
9th Cir 1989
899 F 2d 1281
Corp
Celotex
Under Rule 42 a
See Investors Research
pending in that district
Cal
the actions
if
one of the
attorneys for Basic
s litigation
since August
of
weighted
pretrial litigation
Here
WL
2011
Consulting Inc
favor of denying motion to consolidate
484289
Nev
and defendants
plaintiffs
Geiger et al will be filing
a motion for
Additionally
the Rummell complaint
have determined discovery
summary judgment on
the complaint
complaint
Plaintiffs
or about January 9
are due on or about January 24
Roof
does not contain the same
factual
Additionally
plaintiffs
2014
2014
likely will
filing
legal
answers to
issues and thus
are poised to
file
and as such should not be
decision to
plaintiffs
and
plaintiffs
motion for summary judgment seeking expedited consideration
caused needless delay caused by the Rummell
and
ments which
by defendants prior to defendants
has not subject to extensive motions by defendants
their
Willis
not necessary
is
contains factual and legal argu
motions challenging the pleadings
in
Hadel v
2011
answers to the Rummell complaint
Defendants
result
in
file
its
complaint
at this late
date
It
is
likely
Rummell
et al s
response will be that their
based on the Attorney General s opinion
Operating
Exhibit
Officer
A to
Department
State Defendants
letter
dated October
of Administrative Office Dir
Answer
Dkt
10
decision to
file
a lawsuit
17 2013 to Michael Jordan
Attorney General s opinion
along with other legal pleadings filed the Oregon Attorney General in similar cases
State Defendants
Illinois
legal analysis
California
New
Hampshire
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
No
12 17668
Connecticut
New
Mexico
New
Perry in the United
Page 4
12 16995
Delaware
District
York
in
16998
New
Mexico
in
New
Iowa
No
legal
District
York
12 144
suggests the
counsel
of Columbia
Oregon
Vermont
Appeals
and Brief of Massachusetts
Maine
Oregon and Washington as Amici Curia

Case
et al s
Ninth Circuit Court of
October 25 2013
of Columbia Illinois
States Supreme Court
Response
Delaware
Connecticut
Support of Appellants
12
Rummell
complaint
plaintiffs
See Brief of Massachusetts
and Washington as Amici Curia

Cases
supports
Chief
which was submitted as
ector
The Oregon
was
Maryland
in
Supp
February 28
New
Hampshire
ort of Respondent
2013
and
clients
were
aware of the State Defendants
certainly
December 19 2013 and while admittedly are
ultimate goal of marriage equality
under such circumstances
most
certainly
in
for
all
delayed because of Rummell s litigation
to defendants
to litigate
the court
both actions
in
may deny
either
on a compressed schedule
Wash 2010
consolidation
of their case with
case
Plaintiffs
case should not be
strategy
when
consolidation
consolidation
from having to delay resolution of the
Ultimate Timing
LLC
would be
Simms 2010
This factor also weighs in favor of denying consolidation
WL
important constitutional
is
cases
and
when such
DATED
this
31
st
State defendants and defendant Walruff
consolidation
will
It
Plaintiffs
resolve the
grossly unfair
and
prejudicial
and delay to a decision on th
is
the
case
day of December 2013
By
Lake James
Lake James
Perriguey
Perriguey
OSB No
LAW WORKS LLC

Portland
OR
Telephone
Facsimile
lake
Page 5
WD
grant the motion to consolidate
to
only cause uncertainty
1881868
of the cases
to expeditiously
questions raised in the present case
prejudicial
action or from having
and defendants have agreed upon a summary judg ment schedule
to plaintiffs
plaintiffs
Geiger as well as defendants and will
to plaintiffs
of the curren
and position prior to
whether or how to pursue the
to choose
Oregonians
unduly prejudicial
delay timely resolution
Additionally
free
legal analysis
Response
law
97205 1718
503
503
227 1928
334
works com
2340
983213
By
Lea Ann Easton
Lea Ann Easton
OSB No
DORSAY EASTON
1
SW
Columbia Street
Portland
OR
Telephone
Facsimile
leaston
Response
LLP
Suite 440
97204
503
503
790 9060
790
9068
dorsayindianlaw
Page 6
881413
com
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
12 31 2013 1 27 40
Subject
Bro
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
PM
plaintiffs
Sheila
Does
http
the state have a position on the motion to consolidate
www
law works com
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Weston Sarah
Sent
12 31 2013 1 46 01
Subject
RE
Thanks
Picky
The
Rummell
note
Fund
is
Page
3 of
BRO is
case
not
Functionally
the
Response
to
PM
technically
are the
says
Geiger Rummell
number
they
response
Lake Perriguey
Dunbar John
that
is
6 13 cv
02256
TC
a plaintiff
in Rummell
same
we
the
but
Rummell
the
do not
traffic
in functionality
contains
factual
and
lawyers
complaint
fn
which likely will

defendants
filing
result in motions challenging

the pleadings
answers to the complaints
Emphasis mine
point
that
whether
you make
plaintiffs
practice
let
From
Sent
To
likely
Lea Ann
Tuesday
Potter
have
the
you know
Subject
likely
that
we
characterization
counsel
prior to
suggest that
planning that
Will
it
that
spotted
filing
will
of
the
issues
honestly
court
that
an answer
result
our position
will
to
to
As it
in motions
know
your mind
is
if
we
read
you have
just as soon
of
the
reason
as I
Rights
legal arguments
So
clear
to
that
sentence
think
the
extent
you
likelihood
to
Education
prior to
you
at this
will
you make
raise the
a quick
means that
on consolidation
by defendants
I can t tell
d ask that
Easton
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw
December 31
2013 12 45 PM
Sheila
don
Basic
of
motion
would
that
we
are
know
com
Response
to
Motion
to
Consolidate
Sheila
Attached
Geiger
before
We
is
et
the
Friday
have
not
or not
If
Lea
discussed
Portland
790
et
Motion
to
al case
if
the
state
on behalf
Friday
please let
us know
1 SW
OR
9060
LLP
Columbia
97258
Consolidate
We
will
defendants
a position
Easton
440
the
filed
by the
be editing it
and
Rummell
preparing
plaintiffs
to
file
in
it
on or
4th
Ann
Suite
503
January
in advance
Dorsay
to
Kitzhaber
you have
us prior to
Thanks
response
al v
of
will
be weighing
your clients
and
in on the
are at
motion to
liberty
to
consolidate
share
it
with
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
12 31 2013 1 47 06
Subject
RE
Not yet
we
don
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Subject
Bro
Talking
Perriguey
Sheila
still
mailto
December
H
31
Lea
PM
plaintiffs
lake
2013
Ann
law
works
com
1 28 PM
Easton
Bro plaintiffs
Sheila
Does
the
Lake
James H
Law
state
Works
1906
SW
503
503
on the
motion to
consolidate
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
a position
LLC
Madison
Portland
T
have
Perriguey
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
PRINT
503
www
law
Justice
CONSERVE
RESOURCES
works
com
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Lake Perriguey Weston Sarah
Sent
12 31 2013 2 58 16
Subject
Re Response
Sheila
to
Dunbar John
PM
Geiger Rummell
Sheila
Thank you for the case numbers and the comments

could
in that
And
paragraph
also be looking at the other issues
will
hope you have a peaceful
thought
catching the reference to
New
Year
we
discussed
BRO
had changed
the language
from
likely
Education
rather that Basic Rights
to
may
or
Fund
earlier today
Eve and Day
Lea Ann
On Dec
31
2013
at
1 46
PM
Potter Sheila
The Rummell case number p 2
Thanks
Picky note
BRO
is
not technically
Functionally they are the same
Page 3 of the response says
make
know
we
if
clear that
motion
will
you
Will
let
From
Sent
To
the pleadings
can
t tell
ling
you
that
counsel
motions
inRummell
lawyers
Lea Ann Easton
Potter
mailto
TC
fn 2
not
Fund
the Basic Rights Education
trac
is
in functionality
means
that
LEaston
at this point
have spo ed
As
it
whether
issues that
is
just as
com
it
likely that
that characterization
to your
we
to thecourt
mind
answers to the
will
I
honestly
ask that you
raise the likelihood of
a quick read of the sentence would suggest that
you have reason to think
dorsayindianlaw
Response to Motion to Consolidate
by defendantsprior to defendants ling
you make
of an answer
Sheila
do
wrote
doj state or us
6 13 cv 02256
you know our position on consolidation
Tuesday
Subject
we
So to the extent
practice prior to the
likely will result in
plaintis
is
potter
the Rummell complaint contains factual and legal arguments which likely
that
Emphasis mine
complaints
sheila
a plainti
but
will result in motions challenging
don
soon as
that
know
we
are planning that
Sheila
Attached
al
We
case
We
is
the response to the Motion to Consolidate
be editing
will
have not discussed
if
it
and preparing to
file
it
filed
in
plaintiffs
on or before Friday January
the state defendants will be weighing
position on behalf of your clients and are at liberty to share
Thanks
by the Rummell
it
in
in
Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et
th
on the motion to co nsolidate or not
with us prior to Friday
please let us
If
you have a
know
advance
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton LLP
440 1
Portland
SW
Columbia
OR 97258
503 790 9060
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 2 2014 7 24 01
AM
Subject
Rummell
date
Sheila
service
Sheila
Sorry
to
different
Thanks
Lea
Ann
bother
dates
you but
what
in my notes
date
I
did State
didn
see it
get
served
in the
with Rummell
court
docket
complaint
wrote
down
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
1 2 2014
VON TER STEGGE

H
10 20 22 AM
Subject
Rummel
lawsuit
Sheila
Hi Sheila
Happy New Year
Has
the state been served with the
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
Rummel
suit
don
think
we
ha ve yet
From
H
VON TER STEGGE
11 53 52 AM
Sheila
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
1 2 2014
Subject
RE Rummel
Yes
is
They
due
mailed the
January
motion is
and
the
running
they
due
20
I
when
think
definitive
It
they
re trying
complaint
The
motion
it
was
it
13
They
in both
cases
is
filed
it
so the
26 by next
whether
before
they
question
is
Geiger suit or when
think
it
they
should be the
day mail
our response
served
think
the
the
deadline
us with the
But
our answer
consolidation
us with the
whether
served
latter
I
to
can
new
suit that
find
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
January
02
Sheila
Rummel
mailto
2014
katevts
a more
multco us
10 20 AM
lawsuit
Hi Sheila
Happy
Kate
New
von
Year
Ter
Has
state
been
served
with the
Rummel
suit
don
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
the
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
think
we
have
suit
starts
answer yet
Thursday
Potter
motions on December
m puzzling over
in the
consolidate
From
Subject
s January
filed
Sent
To
and
question
served
to
lawsuit
yet
From
Potter
To
JMiddleton
Sent
1 2 2014 12 41 11
Subject
Voicemail
Tom
I
called
me right back
m sure he ll
fill
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
com
jjlslaw
and
you in
we
PM
talked
Just wanted
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
Sheila
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
5000
he s going
to
let
to
you know
get
back
Happy
to
new
me on my questions
year
and
From
pew
charlene
CC
Jennifer
Thomas
Johnson
To
Perkins Coie
Jr
ord uscourts
Middleton
gov
JMiddleton
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
katevts
multco us
Sent
1 2 2014 12 55 04
Subject
Geiger et al
jjlslaw
com
com
rsaxe
Isaak
aclu org
Misha
Perkins Coie
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
lake
law works
aclu or org
com
Potter
Sheila
PM
v Kitzhaber
Case No
et al
6 13 cv 01834
MC
Ms Pew
We
We
received
have
a notice from
a motion
filed
6 13 cv 02256
TC
for
us
to
be involved
we
filed
but
Rummell
on January 8 2014
et al
As addressed
case
as the claims alleged
be included
like to
a Rule 16 Conference
the case
above referenced
legal issues
and would
Thanks very much
to consolidate
with the
addresses the same

conference
this court regarding
in the instant
We
case
whether
2 00
pm
Case No
Kitzhaber et al
in our motion
write in order to clarify
at
the case
we
filed
are available for this
Ju dge McShane intends
in that conference
and Happy
New
Year
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL trjohnson perkinscoie com
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE
unless expressly indicated

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
To ensure compliance
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
promotingmarketing or recommending to another
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
by reply email and immediately delete the message
Thank you
Department
and cannot be used by the
the taxpayer under the Internal
may
with
any federal tax advice contained
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
copying or disclosing
the
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 2 2014 1 11 08
Subject
Update on the other case
Talked
to
Tom
Johnson
you might still

H
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
give
you an update
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
can
PM
be in court
Sheila
1515
Sheila
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
5000
when
you re available
Your assistant
said that
From
Charlene
To
Johnson
Thomas
CC
Jennifer
Middleton
lake
Pew
ord uscourts gov
law works
rsaxe
aclu org
Sent
1 2 2014 1 23 45
Subject
Re
Perkins Coie
Jr
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
com
leaston
Potter
Sheila
multco us
katevts
com
dorsayindianlaw
Isaak
Kevin
Misha
Diaz
Perkins
aclu
kdiaz
or
org
Coie
PM
Geiger et al v
Case No 6 13 cv 01834
Kitzhaber et al
MC
Counsel
Judge McShane
would
still
2 00
pm
1 22
available
have the Rule 16 Conference
to
like
Please
let
me
know as soon as
but he would
possible
like
have
this be an
in
person conference
Are you
Thank you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to
Judge Michael McShane
United States District Court

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
From
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
Johnson Thomas
To
charlene
Cc
pew
law works
kdiaz
aclu
com
or org
Subject
Geiger
Jr
TRJohnson
charlene
jjlslaw
pew
perkinscoie
com
JMiddleton
com
leaston
doj state or us
com
ord uscourts gov
dorsayindianlaw
sheila potter
et al
97401
Perkins Coie
JMiddleton
leaston
01 02 2014 12 55
Date
ord uscourts gov
Jennifer Middleton
lake
Room 2100
Eugene
jjlslaw
com
Isaak
dorsayindianlaw
sheila potter
doj state or us
6 13
MC
MishaPerkins Coie
com
rsaxe
katevts
misaak
aclu org
multco
us
rsaxe
katevts
perkinscoie
aclu
org
com
Kevin Diaz
lake
law works
kdiaz
aclu
com
or org
multco us
PM
Kitzhaber
et al
Case No
cv
01834
Ms Pew
We received a notice from this court regarding a Rule 16

We have filed a motion to consolidate the case we filed
6 13 cv 02256
TC
with the
addresses the same

conference
for
us
to
and would
be involved
Thanks very much
above referenced
legal issues
like to
be included
New
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
Year
but
on January 8 2014
et al
As addressed
in that conference
and Happy
case
Conference
Rummell
in the instant
in our motion
case
at
Kitzhaber et al
We
whether
the case
2 00
pm
Case No
we
filed
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
IRS CIRCULAR
perkinscoie
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Charlene
CC
Johnson
kdiaz
Pew
ord uscourts gov
aclu or org
Coie
rsaxe
1 2 2014 1 27 33
Subject
Re
am
on 1 22
available
at
Jr
Perkins Coie
lake
law works
aclu org
Sent
Thomas
Sheila
Middleton
JMiddleton
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
com
jjlslaw
com
Isaak
Kevin
Misha
Diaz
Perkins
PM
Geiger et al v
pm The
Potter
Jennifer
com
Case No 6 13 cv 01834
Kitzhaber et al
conference
will
be
in
MC
Eugene
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
OR
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Thu
Jan 2
2014
at
1 23
PM
Pew
Charlene
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane would
person conference
like to
still
Are you

1 22
available
2 00
pm
Please
but he would like have
me know
let
this
be an
as soon as possible
in
Thank
you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
405
From
To
Cc
lake
kdiaz
Date
Subject
Johnson Thomas
charlene
pew
OR
Phone
541
Jr
aclu
or org
leaston
Geiger
et al
com
dorsayindianlaw
sheila potter
01 02 2014 12 55
431 4105
TRJohnson
charlene
jjlslaw
2100
97401
Perkins Coie
ord uscourts gov
com
Room
8th Avenue
Eugene
Jennifer Middleton JMiddleton

law works
Oregon
doj state or us
pew
perkinscoie
JMiddleton
com
com
ord uscourts gov
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
com
Isaak
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
Misha
com
katevts
Perkins Coie
rsaxe
aclu
multco
misaak
org
us
rsaxe
katevts
perkinscoie
aclu org
multco
com
lake
law works
Kevin Diaz kdiaz
com
aclu or org
us
PM
Kitzhaber
et al
Case No
6 13
cv
01834
MC
Ms Pew

Conference
Rummell
on January 8 2014
et al
Kitzhaber et al
at
2 00
pm
Case No
TC
6 13 cv 02256
with the
addresses the same
and would
conference
for
us
to
be involved
Thanks very much
above referenced
legal issues
like to
case
As addressed
be included
but
in our motion
in the instant
We
case
whether
the case
we
filed
in that conference
New
and Happy
Year
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Tenth
LLP
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX
Perkins Coie
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
Couch
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
IRS CIRCULAR 230
we
regulations
this
communication
used
DISCLOSURE
inform you that

including
any attachments
and cannot be used by the taxpayer
on the taxpayer under the

another
NOTICE
received
party
Internal
any transaction
This communication
it
in error
attachments
without
is
for the
purpose
may
ii
of
avoiding
promoting
herein
Department
any
and IRS
federal tax advice
or written by Perkins
not intended
Revenue Code or
or matter addressed
with Treasury
otherwise
Coie LLP
penalties that
marketing
contain privileged or other confidential
or disclosing the contents
to
in
be
may be imposed
or recommending
to
or any attachments
information
If
please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the
copying
contained
Thank you
you have
message and any
From
Charlene
Pew
To
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
CC
Jennifer
ord uscourts gov
Middleton
dorsayindianlaw
Johnson
Thomas
Sent
1 2 2014 1 29 27
Subject
Re
Yes
it
be
will
in
JMiddleton
leaston
R
PM
Geiger et al v
Jr
jjlslaw
com
Isaak
com
Misha
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Perkins Coie
aclu or org
rsaxe
aclu org
lake
Potter
law
works
Sheila
com
Perkins Coie
Case No 6 13 cv 01834
Kitzhaber et al
MC
Eugene
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to
Oregon
District of
405 E 8th Avenue
From
To
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
VON TER STEGGE

Pew ord uscourts gov
Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Katharine
97401
katevts
multco
us
Charlene
Cc
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Perkins Coie
kdiaz
misaak
Re
Subject
am
Geiger
aclu
TRJohnson
Coie
lake
com
law works
rsaxe
aclu
com
perkinscoie
com
org
lake
rsaxe
Jennifer Middleton
law works
aclu
org
com
sheila
leaston
potter
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
com
com
JMiddleton
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
dorsayindianlaw
com
com
Kevin Diaz
Isaak
Misha
doj state or us
PM
et al
Kitzhaber
on 1 22
available
or org
perkinscoie
01 02 2014 01 28
Date
Room 2100
Eugene
at
et al
Case No
pm The
6 13
cv
01834
conference
MC
will
be
in
Eugene
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Thu
Jan 2
2014
at
1 23
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane would
person conference
you
still
like to
Are you
available
1 22
2 00
pm
Please

let
me know
this
be an
as soon as possible
in
Thank
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to
Oregon
District of
405
From
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
Johnson Thomas
To
pew
charlene
Cc
Jr
law works
kdiaz
aclu
com
leaston
or org
Subject
Geiger
et al
TRJohnson
com
dorsayindianlaw
sheila potter
01 02 2014 12 55
Date
431 4105
charlene
jjlslaw
2100
97401
Perkins Coie
ord uscourts gov
lake
Room
8th Avenue
pew
perkinscoie
JMiddleton
com
doj state or us
com
ord uscourts gov
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
com
Isaak
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
Misha
com
Perkins Coie
rsaxe
katevts
aclu
multco
misaak
org
us
perkinscoie
rsaxe
katevts
aclu org
multco
com
lake
law works
Kevin Diaz kdiaz
com
aclu or org
us
PM
Kitzhaber
et al
Case No
6 13
cv
01834
MC
Ms Pew

6 13 cv 02256
TC
with the
addresses the same
for
us
to
legal issues
and would
conference
be involved
Thanks very much
above referenced
like to
case
but
Rummell
on January 8 2014
et al
As addressed
be included
Conference
in the instant
Kitzhaber et al
in our motion
We
case
at
whether
the case
2 00
pm
Case No
we
filed
in that conference
New
and Happy
Year
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Tenth
Street
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX
LLP
Floor
Portland
PHONE
Couch
Perkins Coie
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
IRS CIRCULAR 230

regulations
this
we
communication
used
DISCLOSURE
inform you that

including
any attachments
is
for the
with Treasury
otherwise
of
avoiding
and IRS
federal tax advice
not intended
purpose
Department
any
contained
Coie LLP
penalties that
to
in
be
may be imposed

another
NOTICE
received
party
Internal
any transaction
This communication
it
in error
attachments
without
Revenue Code or
or matter addressed
may
ii
promoting
herein
marketing
or recommending
information
If
copying
to
or any attachments
Thank you
you have
message and any
From
Sheila
Potter
To
CC
ord uscourts gov
Middleton
Jennifer
JMiddleton
Perkins
1 2 2014 1 41 59
PM
Subject
RE
v Kitzhaber
From
Pew
Charlene
Sent
Thursday
To
Katharine
Cc
Jennifer
Geiger et al
Isaak
Misha
VON TER STEGGE

Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Perkins Coie
aclu or org
rsaxe
aclu org
lake
law
works
Johnson
com
Thomas
Case No
et al
6 13 cv 01834
MC
me
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
mailto
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
2014 1 29 PM
January 02
VON TER STEGGE
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
com
Coie
Sent
That time and date works for
Katharine
jjlslaw
com
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
Jr
Pew
Charlene
com
jjlslaw
Isaak
Misha
Kevin Diaz
Coie
Perkins
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu
aclu
or
org
org
lake
law works com
Potter Sheila
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Subject
Re
Yes
be
it
will
Geiger et
in
al
Kitzhaber
et
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Case No
al
Eugene
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to
Oregon
District of
405 E 8th Avenue
From
To
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
97401
VON TER STEGGE katevts

Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Katharine
multco us
Charlene
Cc
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Perkins Coie
kdiaz
misaak
Re
Subject
am
Geiger
aclu
lake
com
TRJohnson
law works
rsaxe
aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
lake
rsaxe
com
law works
aclu
org
com
leaston
sheila potter
Kitzhaber
at
et al
Case No
pm The
6 13
cv
01834
conference
doj state or us
MC
will
be
in
Eugene
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Thu
Jan 2
2014
at
1 23
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
jjlslaw
dorsayindianlaw
PM
et al
on 1 22
available
or org
perkinscoie
01 02 2014 01 28
Date
Room 2100
Eugene
wrote
com
com
JMiddleton
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
com
com
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
Kevin Diaz
Isaak
Misha
Counsel
Judge McShane would
person conference
like to
still
Are you

1 22
available
2 00
pm
Please
me know
let
this
be an
as soon as possible
in
Thank
you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to
Oregon
District of
405
From
OR
Phone
541
Johnson Thomas
To
pew
charlene
Cc
Jr
law works
kdiaz
aclu
com
leaston
or org
Subject
Geiger
et al
TRJohnson
com
dorsayindianlaw
sheila potter
01 02 2014 12 55
Date
431 4105
charlene
jjlslaw
2100
97401
Perkins Coie
ord uscourts gov
lake
Room
8th Avenue
Eugene
pew
perkinscoie
JMiddleton
com
doj state or us
com
ord uscourts gov
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
com
Isaak
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
Misha
com
katevts
Perkins Coie
rsaxe
aclu
multco
misaak
org
us
rsaxe
katevts
perkinscoie
aclu org
multco
com
lake
law works
Kevin Diaz kdiaz
com
aclu or org
us
PM
Kitzhaber
et al
Case No
6 13
cv
01834
MC
Ms Pew

6 13 cv 02256
TC
with the
addresses the same
for
us
to
legal issues
and would
conference
be involved
Thanks very much
above referenced
like to
New
Year
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Tenth
CELL
FAX
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918

503 346 2176
E MAIL
Perkins Coie
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
Couch
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
LLP
but
Rummell
on January 8 2014
et al
As addressed
be included
in that conference
and Happy
case
Conference
in the instant
Kitzhaber et al
in our motion
case
at
We
whether
the case
2 00
pm
Case No
we
filed
IRS CIRCULAR 230
we
regulations
this
communication
used
DISCLOSURE
inform you that

including
any attachments

another
NOTICE
received
party
Internal
any transaction
This communication
it
in error
attachments
without
is
for the
purpose
may
ii
of
avoiding
promoting
herein
Department
any
and IRS
federal tax advice
not intended
Revenue Code or
or matter addressed
with Treasury
otherwise
Coie LLP
penalties that
marketing
to
in
be
may be imposed
or recommending
to
or any attachments
information
If
copying
contained
Thank you
you have
message and any
From
Johnson
To
Potter
CC
Jennifer
Thomas
Sheila
Middleton
leaston
Perkins Coie
Jr
Pew
Charlene
Sent
1 2 2014 1 48 54
PM
Subject
RE
v Kitzhaber
com
jjlslaw
com
dorsayindianlaw
Geiger et al
ord uscourts
JMiddleton
Isaak
Misha
Case No
et al
gov
Katharine
Kevin Diaz
VON TER STEGGE
kdiaz
Perkins Coie
6 13 cv 01834
aclu or org
rsaxe
lake
law
works
com
aclu org
MC
Ms Pew
Counsel
Rummell
the
for
are available
plaintiffs
Best regards
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Potter
Sent
To
Cc
perkinscoie
Sheila
Charlene
mailto sheila
January 02
Thursday
Jennifer
com
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
Subject
RE Geiger
et
al
Charlene
Sent
Thursday
To
Katharine
Cc
Jennifer
leaston
Pew
com
Misha
Kitzhaber
ord uscourts
January 02
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
jjlslaw
Isaak
From
doj state or us
potter
2014 1 42 PM
et
Kevin Diaz
Perkins
al
Coie
Case No
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu
aclu
Yes
be
it
will
lake
Johnson
law works com

Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
6 13 cv 01834 MC
me
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
2014 1 29 PM
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
Isaak
com
Misha
Kevin Diaz
Perkins
Coie
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu
aclu
Geiger et
in
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Case No
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Eugene
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
Room 2100
Eugene
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
97401
or
org
Coie
Re
org
VON TER STEGGE
Middleton
dorsayindianlaw
Subject
or
org
org
lake
law works
Potter Sheila
com
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
From
To

Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Katharine
Cc
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Perkins Coie
kdiaz
misaak
aclu
Re
Subject
am
Geiger
lake
com
TRJohnson
law works
rsaxe
aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
lake
rsaxe
com
law works
aclu
org
com
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
com
com
JMiddleton
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
com
com
Kevin Diaz
dorsayindianlaw
Isaak
Misha
doj state or us
PM
v
et al
Kitzhaber
on 1 22
available
or org
perkinscoie
01 02 2014 01 28
Date
multco us
Charlene
at
et al
Case No
pm The
6 13
cv
01834
conference
MC
will
be
in
Eugene
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
503 988 3377
OR
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
multco us
On Thu
500
Jan 2
2014
at
1 23
PM
Pew
Charlene
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane would
person conference
like to
still
Are you

1 22
available
2 00
pm
Please

let
me know
this
be an
as soon as possible
in
Thank
you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
405
From
To
Cc
lake
kdiaz
Date
Subject
Johnson Thomas
charlene
pew
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
Jr
aclu
com
or org
leaston
Geiger
et al
jjlslaw
2100
431 4105
TRJohnson
charlene
com
dorsayindianlaw
sheila potter
01 02 2014 12 55
Room
97401
Perkins Coie
ord uscourts gov

law works
Oregon
8th Avenue
doj state or us
pew
perkinscoie
JMiddleton
com
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
et al
Case No
6 13
cv
01834
com
Isaak
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
PM
Kitzhaber
com
ord uscourts gov
MC
Misha
com
katevts
Perkins Coie
rsaxe
aclu
multco
org
us
misaak
rsaxe
katevts
perkinscoie
aclu org
multco
us
com
lake
Kevin Diaz kdiaz
law works
com
aclu or org
Ms Pew

TC
6 13 cv 02256
with the
addresses the same
and would
conference
for
us
to
be involved
Thanks very much
above referenced
legal issues
but
on January 8 2014
v
et al
As addressed
be included
like to
case
Conference
Rummell
in our motion
in the instant
We
case
at
Kitzhaber et al
whether
the case
2 00
pm
Case No
we
filed
in that conference
New
and Happy
Year
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Tenth
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
Couch
Perkins Coie
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
IRS CIRCULAR 230
we
regulations
this
communication
used
DISCLOSURE
inform you that

including
any attachments

another
NOTICE
received
party
Internal
any transaction
This communication
it
in error
attachments
without
may
copying
purpose
may
ii
of
avoiding
promoting
herein
Department
any
and IRS
federal tax advice
not intended
Revenue Code or
or matter addressed
marketing
If
e mail in error
please advise
contained
Coie LLP
penalties that
to
in
be
may be imposed
or recommending
to
or any attachments
information
If
you have
message and any
Thank you
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
is
for the
otherwise
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
with Treasury
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Johnson
To
Potter
CC
Jennifer
Diaz
Thomas
Sheila
Middleton
kdiaz
Jr
Perkins Coie
H
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
rsaxe
acluorg
Kevin
aclu or org
Sent
1 2 2014 2 25 17
PM
Subject
RE
v Kitzhaber
Geiger et al
Case No
et al
MC
6 13 cv 01834
Sheila
On
with you earlier
talking
ll
get back to you after conferring
the timing of your response to our consolidation
We
tomorrow
know
in
the Geiger case
some
this
was a motion
in
my
with
the
co
counsel
the Geiger case
on December 20 so 14 days
You mentioned on
respect
in
phone
to this but since you were already in the Geiger case
tied
considering
in
it
wrong
this is
if
somehow
filed
motion
plus
on
is
January
think that the
don
the complaint
by our
calculation
there
Nice
think
3 by our
service
issue you raised
your response
calculation
of our complaint
is
Let
due
me
is
should be a connection
the Geiger case
Thanks
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Potter
Sent
To
Cc
perkinscoie
Sheila
Charlene
mailto sheila
January 02
Thursday
Jennifer
com
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
Subject
RE Geiger
et
al
Charlene
Sent
Thursday
To
Katharine
Cc
Jennifer
leaston
Pew
com
Misha
Kitzhaber
ord uscourts
January 02
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
jjlslaw
Isaak
From
doj state or us
potter
2014 1 42 PM
et
Kevin Diaz
Perkins
al
Coie
Case No
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu
aclu
Yes
be
it
will
lake
Johnson
law works com

Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
6 13 cv 01834 MC
me
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
2014 1 29 PM
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
Isaak
com
Misha
Kevin Diaz
Perkins
Coie
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu
aclu
Geiger et
in
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Case No
6 13 cv 01834 MC
Eugene
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
Room 2100
Eugene
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
97401
or
org
Coie
Re
org
VON TER STEGGE
Middleton
dorsayindianlaw
Subject
or
org
org
lake
law works
Potter Sheila
com
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
From
To

Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Katharine
Cc
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Perkins Coie
kdiaz
misaak
Re
Subject
am
Geiger
aclu
lake
com
TRJohnson
law works
rsaxe
aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
lake
rsaxe
com
law works
aclu
org
com
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
com
com
JMiddleton
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
com
com
Kevin Diaz
dorsayindianlaw
Isaak
Misha
doj state or us
PM
v
et al
Kitzhaber
on 1 22
available
or org
perkinscoie
01 02 2014 01 28
Date
multco us
Charlene
at
et al
Case No
pm The
6 13
cv
01834
conference
MC
will
be
in
Eugene
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
503 988 3377
OR
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
multco us
On Thu
500
Jan 2
2014
at
1 23
PM
Pew
Charlene
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane would
person conference
like to
still
Are you

1 22
available
2 00
pm
Please

let
me know
this
be an
as soon as possible
in
Thank
you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
405
From
To
Cc
lake
kdiaz
Date
Johnson Thomas
charlene
pew
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
Jr
aclu
com
or org
leaston
sheila potter
01 02 2014 12 55
PM
Room
431 4105
TRJohnson
charlene
jjlslaw
2100
97401
Perkins Coie
ord uscourts gov

law works
Oregon
8th Avenue
com
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
pew
JMiddleton
com
perkinscoie
com
ord uscourts gov
leaston
sheila potter
jjlslaw
com
Isaak
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
Misha
com
katevts
Perkins Coie
rsaxe
aclu
multco
org
us
misaak
rsaxe
katevts
perkinscoie
aclu org
multco
us
com
lake
Kevin Diaz kdiaz
law works
com
aclu or org
Subject
Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et al
Case No
6 13
cv
MC
01834
Ms Pew

TC
6 13 cv 02256
with the
addresses the same
for
us
to
legal issues
and would
conference
be involved
Thanks very much
above referenced
but
Rummell
on January 8 2014
v
et al
As addressed
be included
like to
case
Conference
Kitzhaber et al
in our motion
in the instant
We
case
at
whether
the case
2 00
pm
Case No
we
filed
in that conference
New
and Happy
Year
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Tenth
LLP
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX
Perkins Coie
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
Couch
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
IRS CIRCULAR 230
we
regulations
this
inform you that
communication
used
DISCLOSURE
including
any attachments

another
NOTICE
received
party
Internal
any transaction
This communication
it
in error
attachments
without
may
copying
for the
or matter addressed
may
otherwise
purpose
ii
of
avoiding
promoting
herein
any
and IRS
federal tax advice
not intended
Revenue Code or
If
e mail in error
please advise
contained
Coie LLP
penalties that
marketing
to
in
be
may be imposed
or recommending
to
or any attachments
information
If
you have
message and any
Thank you
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
is
Department
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
with Treasury
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Johnson
Thomas
CC
Jennifer
Middleton
Diaz
Sheila
kdiaz
1 2 2014 2 50 26
Subject
Re
Attachments
image001
county
last I
also question
whether
unseen
That
we
will
light
of
agree
how
about
file
its
we
one
you re not
in the
was
case
split
back
the
of
That
me on the
in the
lawsuit
between
will
give
complaint
Geiger case
Deputy
Chief
acluorg
Kevin
in that
Jan
3 and
the
think
the
to
only question
you chose
Jan
us a chance
a party
with whatever
13
and
assess
so that we
might be
to
agree
posed
file
to
know
that
amend
whether
was
sight
our response
either with an agreement
here s why you re wrong

since
you know
sometimes I am
starting out with a motion or an answer
and what the timing
Sheila
rsaxe
MC
you represent
conferral
one
difference
Jan
to
counsel
in which
a meaningful
consolidation
response
your getting
Perkins Coie
under the federal rules

You hadn t yet served us with the
continued
not to serve us for another week
and hadn t served
there
to
Misha
Case No 6 13 cv 01834
Kitzhaber et al
and
the
whether
would
said
State
is
Isaak
png
checked
deadline
com
jjlslaw
PM
Geiger et al v
It s a motion in both cases

and
complaint in your case
applicable
Perkins Coie
Jr
JMiddleton
aclu or org
Sent
the
the
in
or with
we
re
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jan 2
2014
TRJohnson
of
at
Justice
2 25 PM
perkinscoie
Johnson
com mailto
Thomas
TRJohnson
Jr
Perkins
perkinscoie
com
Coie
wrote
Sheila
Nice
talking
complaint
with you earlier
issue
Geiger case
On
20
in some
ll
the
by our calculation
on December
wrong
you raised
get
respect
You
to
of
mentioned
January
on the
you after
conferring
your response
your response
so 14 days plus 3 is
somehow tied to
be a connection
back
timing
is
due
to
tomorrow
We
filed
3 by our calculation
phone
think
that
with my co
our consolidation
Let
the
this
but since you were already in the Geiger case
considering
this was a motion in the Geiger case
it
don
of
t
on the
motion in the
in the
me know
service
I
counsel
if
Geiger case
this is
our complaint
think
there
Thanks
Tom
Thomas
1120
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
97209
727
4128
2176
trjohnson perkinscoie
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
Sheila
To
Charlene
STEGGE
Jennifer
kdiaz
leaston
aclu
Subject
mailto
January
Pew
02
Middleton
org mailto
time and
Geiger et
date
sheila
2014
gov
kdiaz
al
works
potter
mailto
com
or us
leaston
org
lake
ord uscourts
JMiddleton
law
works
dorsayindianlaw
Johnson
et
Pew
com mailto
or org
Kitzhaber
for me
doj state
Charlene
jjlslaw
aclu
com mailto
rsaxe aclu
1 42 PM
JMiddleton
or org mailto
RE
com mailto
ord uscourts
dorsayindianlaw
rsaxe aclu
That
LLP
503 914 8918

503 346 2176
E MAIL
Cc
Coie
Street
Floor
Portland
CELL
FAX
Perkins
al
Thomas
Case No
gov
Katharine
jjlslaw
com
com mailto
com
Isaak
Jr
Perkins
6 13 cv
01834
lake
Misha
Coie
MC
VON TER
Kevin
law
Diaz
works
Perkins
is
should
com
Coie
From
Charlene
mailto
Sent
Thursday
To
Katharine
Cc
Jennifer
kdiaz
aclu
leaston
Subject
Yes it
Charlene
2014
Charlene
Pew
1 29 PM
JMiddleton
kdiaz
jjlslaw
aclu
com mailto
rsaxe aclu
Geiger et
al
com mailto
or org
leaston
org
lake
works
dorsayindianlaw
Potter
Kitzhaber
JMiddleton
law
et
Sheila
al
com
Isaak
Johnson
Case No
jjlslaw
of
to
Phone
541
Judge
District
431
Katharine
Charlene
Cc
Johnson
TRJohnson
Michael
Thomas
Room
Jr
6 13 cv
01834
katevts
multco us
VON TER
Pew
STEGGE
ord uscourts
Thomas
Jr
perkinscoie
katevts
gov
Perkins
com mailto
multco us mailto
mailto
Charlene
Pew
TRJohnson
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com mailto
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
or org mailto
kdiaz
com mailto
aclu
lake
or org
law
kdiaz
works
ord uscourts
perkinscoie
com
aclu
com
lake
com
Kevin
or org mailto
law
works
com mailto
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
org mailto
com mailto
rsaxe aclu
misaak
org
perkinscoie
rsaxe aclu
Diaz
kdiaz
leaston
misaak
org mailto
rsaxe aclu
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
sheila
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
von
Ter
Assistant
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
County
Suite
503
mailto
988
katevts
urldefense
0A r
Misha
Kitzhaber
2 pm
The
et
al
Case No
conference
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
Pew
Perkins
org
will
6 13 cv
01834
MC
be in Eugene
County
Attorney
fax
multnomah or us multco us multco us
proofpoint
com v1
url
u http
2FnXyeOVLNdinzgwuJJiftu0lA
multco us k
2BuHZLxY
3D
3D
06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4I
0A
0A
s 886d51d1a21973e70fd88431444b51e685fd9579b2b8a5381f43636f89822799
Jan 2
law
97214
fGEkxHA6QAJYf8dfAugINyMqRW5oFdgW9rJS
m vh13bxsNQAVcPFltVK
Charlene
lake
com
Stegge
501
https
al
on 1 22 at
Senior
katevts
works
01 28 PM
Geiger et
am available
law
Isaak
doj state
Re
aclu
or org
com
potter
Subject
Middleton
kdiaz
aclu
lake
sheila
01 02 2014
gov
Jennifer
leaston
Counsel
Coie
Coie
jjlslaw
Thu
Perkins
MC
4105
JMiddleton
On
com
Coie
2100
com mailto
3D
Perkins
McShane
jjlslaw
3D
Misha
Diaz
works
Court
JMiddleton
Kate
law
97401
To
Kevin
lake
Oregon
Avenue
OR
Date
com
com mailto
be in Eugene
Deputy
Eugene
Coie
gov
STEGGE
Middleton
States
8th
works
ord uscourts
Pew
District
From
02
mailto
gov
png
Courtroom
January
VON TER
org mailto
will
gov
ord uscourts
or org mailto
Re
image001
United
ord uscourts
Pew
dorsayindianlaw
rsaxe aclu
405
Pew
Charlene
2014
at
1 23 PM
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
VhphQ
Judge
McShane
an in person
possible
Thank
image001
Charlene
of
8th
OR
Phone
541
431
charlene
pew
tel
Thomas
pew
Middleton
potter
katevts
gov
gov
mailto
mailto
law
works
jjlslaw
com mailto
com mailto
kdiaz
have
this be
as soon
as
doj state
org
Isaak
com
lake
works
sheila
multco us
law
com
Perkins
works
Coie
com mailto
lake
law
com
com
org mailto
potter
potter
jjlslaw
Misha
com
dorsayindianlaw
kdiaz
gov
gov
JMiddleton
com
rsaxe aclu
sheila
ord uscourts
ord uscourts
dorsayindianlaw
or org
or us mailto
katevts
law
leaston
or us mailto
multco us mailto
lake
com
pew
com mailto
jjlslaw
leaston
aclu
pew
perkinscoie
com mailto
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
charlene
charlene
misaak
doj state
01 02 2014
aclu
doj state
doj state
katevts
rsaxe aclu
or org mailto
org
Kevin
kdiaz
aclu
Diaz
or org
or us
or us
multco us mailto
katevts
multco us
12 55 PM
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Case No
6 13 cv
01834
MC
Pew
received
2 00 pm
a notice
We
al
motion
have
from this court
filed
Case No
6 13 cv
we
case
are available
order
to
clarify
very
02256
filed
We
Thanks
a motion to
the
case
and
TC
addresses
Judge
Happy
the
16 Conference
case
we
above
the
legal issues
McShane
New
a Rule
with the
same
for this conference
whether
much
regarding
consolidate
and
intends
filed
referenced
would
like
for us to
case
as the
to
Thomas
1120
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
Perkins
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
tel
tel
tel
503
503
503
727
914
346
2176
8918
2176
com mailto
com
al
but
in that
2014
v
alleged
be included
be involved
et
As addressed
claims
Year
Coie
on January
Rummell
Tom
FAX
like
me know
Coie
com mailto
or org mailto
et
he would
let
4105
TRJohnson
JMiddleton
org mailto
potter
Perkins
JMiddleton
dorsayindianlaw
aclu
29 20431
com mailto
kdiaz
Subject
28541
Jr
rsaxe aclu
We
but
Please
McShane
com mailto
dorsayindianlaw
sheila
Michael
ord uscourts
lake
leaston
leaston
Ms
2 00 pm
2100
4105
jjlslaw
com
Date
16 Conference
Court
Room
perkinscoie
sheila
1 22
ord uscourts
Jennifer
JMiddleton
works
Rule
Judge
perkinscoie
charlene
misaak
have
Oregon
Johnson
Cc
to
97401
TRJohnson
To
to
District
Avenue
Eugene
From
like
you
Deputy
States
the
Are you available
Pew
District
405
still
png
Courtroom
United
would
conference
in our
in the
at
Kitzhaber
instant
write in
conference
IRS
CIRCULAR
230
regulations
contained
Perkins
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
avoiding
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
message
and
it
in error
This
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
keep
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
information
applicable
that
any attachments
be used
to
otherwise
the
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
copying
or disclosing
that
privileged
the
IRS
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
confidential
by reply email
and
any federal
Code
information
and
immediately
contents
Thank
or
ii
addressed
If
you
delete
the
you
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
cannot
without
with Treasury Department
expressly indicated
including
may contain
any attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
compliance
unless
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
may be imposed on the
herein
have
To
inform you that
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
is
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
1 2 2014 3 33 45
Subject
Fwd
And
they succeed
www
http
To
January 2
nobody
Subject
This
is
Activity in
two week
PM
2014
an automatic
and
at
2 46 09
PM PST
01834
MC Geiger
To avoid
by
e mail message generated
box
including
receipt is required
if
is
the
pro se
CM ECF system
a transcript
litigants
by law or
by
Scheduling
Please
DO NOT RESPOND
to this
States policy permits attorneys
one free elec tronic copy of
PACER
the filer
document during
and 30 page
limit
all
documents
a ccess fees apply to
this first
viewing
However
all
if
other
the
do not apply
District Court
District of
The
al
of the United
to receive
directed
of each
the free copy
Kitzhaber et
Judicial Conference
download a copy
later charges
document
et al v
unattended
is
parties in a case
electronically
referenced
Kitzhaber et al Scheduling
ord uscourts gov
NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS
users
message
e mail because the mail
filed
al
delay
Activity in Case 6 13 cv
of record
MC Geiger et
Case 6 13 cv 01834
ord uscourts gov
info
Date
law works com
Begin forwarded
From
in
Sheila
Oregon
Filing
following transaction
was
entered on 1 2 2014 at 2 46
Case
Name
Geiger et al v
Case
Number
6 13 cv 01834
Kitzhaber
PM PST
and
filed
on 1 2 2014
et al
MC
Filer
Document Number 15 No document
Docket
attached
Text
Scheduling
Order by Judge Michael J McShane
16 Conference set
for
1 8 2014
Judge Michael J McShane
is reset for
Based upon
1 22 2014 at 02
the schedule of the Court
30PM
in
Ordered by Judge Michael J McShane
he Rule
Eugene Courtroom2 before

cp
Middleton
Jennifer J
Von
Katharine
Kevin Diaz
Holm
Kristina J
Lake James
AD
maguero
Sheila
Thomas
maguero
KJHolm
MIsaak
Isaak
jjlslaw
com
amy goodale
pjenkins
jjlslaw
com
multco us
perkinscoie
com
DAnderson
perkinscoie
com
docketpor
com
perkinscoie
law works com
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
com
com
jj
dorsayindianlaw
adargis
perkinscoie
com
com
kellyd
docketpor
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
com
com
com
sheila
Johnson
6 13 cv 01834
com
multco us
perkinscoie
lake
leaston
perkinscoie
Potter
katevts
jjlslaw
aclu or org
Perriguey
Lea Ann Easton
Misha
jmiddleton
Ter Stegge
kdiaz
has been electronically mailed to
jjls
MC Notice
6 13 cv 01834
potter
doj state or us
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
samantha moon
com
ADargis
com
MC Notice
will
not be electronically
mailed to
doj state or us
perkinscoie
com
shiori
iinuma
docketpor
doj state or us
perkinscoie
com
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
1 2 2014 3 35 18
Subject
RE
That
to
may actually
have
been
PM
Case 6 13 cv 01834
the
court
MC Geiger et
s own
delay
works
com
But
al
yeah
frustrating
when
you were
ready
go
Perriguey
From
Lake
Sent
Thursday
To
Potter
Sheila
Fwd
And
succeed
they
Lake
Law
Works
SW
503
503
data
detectors
0 0
data
detectors
0 0
2340
tel
law
works
of
forwarded
From
info
Date
January
Civil
Kitzhaber
2014
503
20334
2340
electronic
gov
at
copy
mailto
works
mailto
com
and
all
by the
filer
download
a copy
of
document
is
ord uscourts
USERS
nobody
ord uscourts
MC
Geiger et
generated
PACER
each
Judicial
a transcript
the
filed
access
document
by the
CM
Conference
including
Kitzhaber
ECF system
et
fees
copy
apply
to
all
this first
and
of
the
if
receipt
other
viewing
30 page
United
limit
is
users
policy
receive
permits
one
avoid
if
the
free
or
later charges
referenced
apply
Oregon
Filing
transaction
al v
01834
Kitzhaber
MC
https
Filer
Number
document
Text
RESPOND
required by law
To
However
do not
to
was
entered
on 1 2 2014
at
2 46 PM
PST
and
filed
et
al
Case Number
Docket
NOT
Court
Electronic
following
15 No
DO
States
Case Name
Document
al Scheduling
Please
pro se litigants
electronically
during
free
gov
al v
unattended
parties in a case
documents
gov
PST
01834
mail box is
ACCESS
of
info
e mail message
directed
of
law
RESOURCES
2 46 09 PM
gov
the
record
District
www
in Case 6 13 cv
TO PUBLIC
attorneys of
6 13 cv
al Scheduling
Justice
ord uscourts
an automatic
Geiger et
et
message
Activity
of
1928
CONSERVE
this e mail because
Notice
20227
ord uscourts
nobody
District
503
com http
PRINT
Begin
U S
al v
delay
x apple
334
PLEASE DON
NOTE
Geiger et
x apple
tel
Guardian
is
MC
97205
1928
lagojaime
This
01834
Street
227
skype
Subject
in Case 6 13 cv
in a two week
Oregon
www
To
law
3 34 PM
LLC
http
OTLA
lake
2014
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
T
02
Activity
James H
1906
mailto
January
Subject
The
Activity in
attached
ecf
ord uscourts
gov
cgi
bin DktRpt
pl 114233
on 1 2 2014
to
Scheduling
Order
by Judge
Michael
16 Conference
set for 1 8 2014
Judge
McShane
MC
Notice
Michael
6 13 cv
01834
J
Jennifer
jjls
Middleton
jjlslaw
Katharine
Kevin
jjls
Stegge
aclu
McShane
reset
by Judge
at
the
McShane
pjenkins
katevts
aclu
com mailto
or org
KJHolm perkinscoie
com
docketpor
perkinscoie
com mailto
docketpor
perkinscoie
com
Lea
jj
Ann
Easton
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
kellyd
adargis
Isaak
maguero
H
Potter
samantha
sheila
potter
leaston
MIsaak
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
com
sheila
potter
samantha
doj state
or us
shiori iinuma doj state
or us mailto
or us
Johnson
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
docketpor
perkinscoie
maguero
perkinscoie
6 13 cv
01834
MC
perkinscoie
com mailto
ADargis
com mailto
com mailto
Notice
will
docketpor
maguero
not
com mailto
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
be electronically
com
com
or us mailto
moon
com
or us mailto
ADargis
com
com
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
doj state
com
com
perkinscoie
docketpor
works
com
doj state
Thomas
moon
law
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
maguero
lake
com mailto
kellyd
adargis
com mailto
com mailto
com mailto
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
com mailto
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
jj
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
docketpor
Sheila
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
dorsayindianlaw
Misha A D
works
Rule
2 before
jjlslaw
multco us
perkinscoie
law
com mailto
multco us
kdiaz
the
cp
pjenkins
DAnderson
lake
Court
Courtroom
com
com mailto
Perriguey
the
jmiddleton jjlslaw
perkinscoie
James H
of
in Eugene
jjlslaw
DAnderson
Lake
schedule
02 30PM
mailed to
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
upon
com mailto
com
amy goodale
or org mailto
Holm KJHolm
Michael
electronically
jjlslaw
katevts
Based
for 1 22 2014
jmiddleton jjlslaw
multco us mailto
kdiaz
Diaz
Kristina
Ter
Ordered
has been
com mailto
Von
amy goodale
is
com
com
mailed to
doj state
perkinscoie
com
or us
com
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
1 2 2014 3 39 41
Subject
Re
It
was
On
Jan 2
From
Lake
Sent
To
Potter
And
PM
MC Geiger et
Case 6 13 cv 01834
lawyers associated
Perriguey
Potter
Sheila
H
s
al
with the case
asked the
cl
erk
sheila
own
potter
delay
wrote
doj state or us
yeah
But
frustrating
when you
were ready to
go
com
law works
mailto lake
January 02
Sheila
2014 3 34 PM
Activity
they succeed
PM
have been the court
actually
Fwd
Lake James
3 35
at
Thursday
Subject
Activity in
law works com
2014
may
That
now so many
because there are
www
http
Sheila
in
in
MC
Case 6 13 cv 01834
two week
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Scheduling
delay
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

Begin forwarded
From
Date
To
info
nobody
This
is
message
ord uscourts gov
January 2
Subject
CONSERVE RESOURCES
2014
at
2 46 09
PM PST
ord uscourts gov
Activity in Case 6 13 cv
an automatic
01834
MC Geiger
box
is
and
parties in a case
the
Kitzhaber et
CM ECF system
al
Scheduling
Please
DO NOT RESPOND
to this
unattended

of record
by
et al v
including
Judicial Conference
pro se
litigants
of the United
to receive
all
documents
electronically
filed
To avoid
users
document
referenced
by law or
receipt is required
if
download a copy
later charges
is
a transcript
directed
the free copy
and 30 page
The
PACER
the filer
limit
this first
viewing
However
other
all
if
the
do not apply
District Court
District of
by
document during
of each
Oregon
Filing
was
entered on 1 2 2014 at 2 46
Case
Name
Geiger et al v
Case
Number
6 13 cv 01834
Kitzhaber
PM PST
and
on 1 2 2014
filed
et al
MC
Filer
Text
Order by Judge Michael J McShane
Scheduling
16 Conference set
for
1 8 2014
MC Notice
6 13 cv 01834
Middleton
Jennifer J
Von
Katharine
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Holm
Kristina J
Lake James
Misha
AD
maguero
Sheila
Perriguey
Thomas
maguero
MIsaak
Isaak
perkinscoie
Johnson
perkinscoie
cp
multco us
jjlslaw
com
amy goodale
pjenkins
jjlslaw
com
multco us
com
DAnderson
perkinscoie
com
docketpor
com
perkinscoie
dorsayindianlaw
com
com
perkinscoie
jj
dorsayindianlaw
adargis
perkinscoie
com
com
kellyd
dorsayindianlaw
docketpor
perkinscoie
com
com
doj state or us
perkinscoie
samantha moon
com
ADargis
doj state or us
perkinscoie
com
shiori
iinuma
docketpor
doj state or us
perkinscoie
com
com
will
If
e mail in error
please advise
mailed to
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
Eugene Courtroom2 before
law works com
TRJohnson
MC Notice
may
com
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
potter
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
in
he Rule
com
sheila
6 13 cv 01834
katevts
lake
leaston
Potter
30PM
aclu or org
KJHolm
Lea Ann Easton
1 22 2014 at 02
the schedule of the Court
jmiddleton
Ter Stegge
is reset for
Based upon
Ordered by Judge Michael J McShane
jjls
Docket
attached
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
1 2 2014 3 42 24
Subject
RE
Activity in
PM
Case 6 13 cv 01834
MC Geiger et
al
Oy
From
Lake
Sent
Thursday
To
Potter
Subject
It
Perriguey
was
Lake
Law
Sheila
Re
because
Works
SW
503
503
there
so many
01834
MC
Geiger et
lawyers
associated
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
tel
334
2340
tel
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
to
com
97205
1928
lagojaime
Jan 2
That
in Case 6 13 cv
are now
227
skype
sheila
works
Street
Oregon
www
On
law
3 40 PM
al v
Kitzhaber
with the
case
et
al Scheduling
asked
the
clerk
LLC
http
OTLA
lake
2014
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
T
02
Activity
James H
1906
mailto
January
works
of
2014
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
PRINT
law
works
com
Justice
3 35 PM
doj state
may actually
www
CONSERVE
at
potter
503
have
RESOURCES
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
been
the
court
sheila
potter
s own
delay
works
com
doj state
But
yeah
or us
wrote
frustrating
when
you were
ready
go
Perriguey
From
Lake
Sent
Thursday
To
Potter
Sheila
Subject
Fwd
And
succeed
they
Lake
Law
Works
SW
503
503
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al Scheduling
delay
data
detectors
0 0
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
334
2340
tel
PLEASE DON
law
works
of
forwarded
From
info
Date
January
nobody
Civil
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
CONSERVE
2014
works
com
RESOURCES
gov
at
an automatic
TO PUBLIC
gov
info
mailto
nobody
mail box is
and
all
directed
by the
filer
download
a copy
of
document
is
ord uscourts
USERS
ord uscourts
MC
PACER
each
a transcript
the
filed
access
by the
CM
copy
Conference
including
Kitzhaber
ECF system
et
al Scheduling
Please
apply
to
all
this first
and
30 page
of
the
United
DO
States
pro se litigants
electronically
fees
during
free
gov
al v
NOT
RESPOND
unattended
Judicial
document
Geiger et
generated
parties in a case
documents
gov
PST
01834
e mail message
the
ACCESS
record
of
mailto
2 46 09 PM
in Case 6 13 cv
this e mail because
copy
law
message
ord uscourts
attorneys of
www
Justice
ord uscourts
Activity
electronic
503
com http
PRINT
Begin
NOTE
Geiger et
x apple
tel
Guardian
is
MC
97205
1928
lagojaime
This
01834
Street
227
skype
Subject
in Case 6 13 cv
in a two week
Oregon
www
To
law
3 34 PM
LLC
http
OTLA
lake
2014
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
T
02
Activity
James H
1906
mailto
January
if
receipt
other
viewing
limit
is
users
policy
receive
permits
one
required by law
To
However
do not
to
avoid
if
apply
the
free
or
later charges
referenced
to
U S
District
District
Notice
The
of
of
Court
Oregon
Electronic
following
Filing
transaction
was
entered
on 1 2 2014
at
2 46 PM
PST
and
filed
on 1 2 2014
Case Name
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
Case Number
6 13 cv
MC
01834
https
ecf
ord uscourts
gov
cgi
bin DktRpt
pl 114233
Filer
Document
15 No
Number
document
Docket
attached
Text
Scheduling
Order
by Judge
Michael
16 Conference
set for 1 8 2014
Judge
McShane
MC
Notice
Michael
6 13 cv
01834
J
Jennifer
jjls
Middleton
jjlslaw
Katharine
Kevin
McShane
reset
jjls
Stegge
by Judge
aclu
the
at
McShane
pjenkins
kdiaz
aclu
katevts
KJHolm perkinscoie
docketpor
perkinscoie
com mailto
docketpor
perkinscoie
com
jj
Ann
Easton
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
kellyd
dorsayindianlaw
Misha A D
adargis
Isaak
maguero
H
Potter
samantha
sheila
potter
leaston
docketpor
works
com
dorsayindianlaw
MIsaak
com
sheila
potter
samantha
doj state
or us
or us mailto
or us
Johnson
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
docketpor
perkinscoie
maguero
perkinscoie
6 13 cv
01834
MC
This
under
will
docketpor
maguero
not
com mailto
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
be electronically
perkinscoie
or us
com
com
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
doj state
com
com
mailed to
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
ADargis
com mailto
com mailto
Notice
CONFIDENTIALITY
perkinscoie
com mailto
com
com
or us mailto
moon
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
or us mailto
ADargis
com
com
perkinscoie
doj state
com
com
doj state
Thomas
moon
law
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
maguero
lake
com mailto
kellyd
adargis
com mailto
com mailto
com mailto
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
com mailto
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
jj
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
docketpor
Sheila
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
jjlslaw
multco us
com
Lea
com mailto
or org
com mailto
works
Rule
2 before
multco us
perkinscoie
law
the
cp
pjenkins
DAnderson
lake
Court
Courtroom
com
com mailto
Perriguey
the
jmiddleton jjlslaw
perkinscoie
James H
of
in Eugene
jjlslaw
DAnderson
Lake
schedule
02 30PM
mailed to
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
upon
com mailto
com
amy goodale
or org mailto
Holm KJHolm
Michael
electronically
jjlslaw
katevts
Based
for 1 22 2014
jmiddleton jjlslaw
multco us mailto
kdiaz
Diaz
Kristina
Ter
Ordered
has been
com mailto
Von
amy goodale
is
information
applicable
law
If
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
exempt from
from the
context
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
that
keep
you have
the
received
contents
from your system
confidential
and
please advise
immediately
delete
the
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
1 3 2014 8 18 31
Subject
BRO
Has
the state been served
Lake James
Sheila
H
AM
Case
If
so do you know the date by which the State must respond
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
1 3 2014 8 25 46
Subject
Re BRO Case
It
has
December
January
26
Sheila
think
AM
is
when
they
put
it
in the
mail
Which
makes our deadline
20
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jan 3
2014
of
at
Justice
8 18 AM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
do you know
the
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
wrote
Has
the
Lake
Law
state
been
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
227
1928
334
2340
skype
lagojaime
PLEASE DON
works
law
Guardian
by which
the
State
must respond
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
date
Street
Oregon
www
This
so
Perriguey
http
OTLA
If
LLC
Portland
T
served
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
1 3 2014 8 51 29
Subject
Re BRO Case
Is the
Lake
Law
State
going
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
of
com
Civil
PRINT
Justice
CONSERVE
com and
2014
has
January
delete
at
the
or privileged
sender
immediately
this e mail and
8 25 AM
December
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
Jan 3
It
works
e mail may contain
recipient
On
on consolidation
97205
227
skype
works
a position
Street
Oregon
www
This
AM
Perriguey
http
OTLA
take
LLC
Portland
T
to
Sheila
26
Potter
think
all
copies
Sheila
is
when
they
information
by return
and
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
intended
lake
law
attachments
sheila
potter
doj state
put
in the
mail
it
the
to
or us
Which
wrote
makes our deadline
20
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jan 3
2014
of
at
Justice
8 18 AM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
do you know
the
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
wrote
Has
the
Lake
Law
state
been
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
227
1928
334
2340
skype
lagojaime
PLEASE DON
works
law
Guardian
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
lake
CONFIDENTIALITY
law
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
State
must respond
keep
www
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
the
sender
works
or privileged
immediately
com
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
lake
intended
law
attachments
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
the
Justice
CONSERVE
please notify
com mailto
This
by which
97205
e mail may contain
recipient
date
Street
Oregon
www
This
so
Perriguey
http
OTLA
If
LLC
Portland
T
served
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
1 3 2014 9 21 31
Subject
RE BRO
ve
conferred
sure yet what

delay
with Tom
Johnson
our position
in resolution
concerns
with the
of
AM
Case
and
will
the
be
we
I
issues
re going
ve
and
to
expressed
we
will
file
some
probably
our response
concerns
file
on Wednesday
about
something
the
potential
that
raises
m not
for a
those
court
Original Message
From
Lake
Sent
Friday
To
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
Is the
Lake
Law
Sheila
Re
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
Civil
PRINT
com and
on consolidation
Justice
CONSERVE
delete
2014
has
January
a position
com
at
the
or privileged
sender
immediately
this e mail and
8 25 AM
December
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
Jan 3
It
take
e mail may contain
recipient
On
to
97205
227
skype
works
com
Street
Oregon
www
This
works
Perriguey
http
OTLA
law
8 51 AM
LLC
Portland
T
lake
2014
going
James H
1906
03
BRO Case
State
Works
mailto
January
26
Potter
think
all
copies
Sheila
is
when
they
information
by return
and
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
intended
lake
law
attachments
sheila
potter
doj state
put
in the
mail
it
the
to
or us
Which
wrote
makes our deadline
20
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jan 3
2014
of
at
Justice
8 18 AM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
do you know
the
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
wrote
Has
the
Lake
Law
state
been
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
227
1928
334
2340
skype
lagojaime
PLEASE DON
works
law
Guardian
by which
the
State
must respond
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
please notify
com mailto
lake
law
www
law
works
com
Justice
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
recipient
date
Street
Oregon
www
This
so
Perriguey
http
OTLA
If
LLC
Portland
T
served
RESOURCES
confidential
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
lake
intended
law
attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
NOTICE
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Potter
To
Johnson
Sheila
misaak
1 3 2014 9 35 17
Subject
Motion deadline
m going
on next
I
ll
send
sure
to
file
something
Wednesday
it
to
as the
court
Sheila
Deputy
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
of
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
quick
I
that
with the
for the
file
the
Perkins Coie
it
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
perkinscoie
673
court
State
today
explaining
s response
to
Probably unnecessary
court
Justice
Suite
TRJohnson
com
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
com
AM
deadline
you before
in federal
Jr
perkinscoie
Sent
Thomas
5000
and
are on the
same
the
but
page
that
you and
have
agreed
motion for consolidation

eh
about
always
like
deadlines
to
be
From
Potter
To
Johnson
Sheila
misaak
Thomas
perkinscoie
1 3 2014 2 50 43
Subject
Rummell Geiger
Attachments
Motion to set deadline
hair on fire
here
s what
Perkins Coie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
com
PM
Sent
As promised
Jr
Motion
m getting
to set
as Jan
ready
deadline
8 pdf
to
as Jan
Potter
file
Dec
Let
8
for
Potter
Dec
for
motion to set deadline
motion to set deadline pdf
me know
if
anything
in here
sets your
F ROSENBLUM
ELLEN
Attorney General
H POTTER
SHEILA
Deputy
ANNA
993485
Chief Trial Counsel
M JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
Department
of Justice
1515 SWFifth
Portland
OR
Ave
Suite
410
97201
971 673 1880

Fax 971 673 5000
Telephone
Email Sheila Potter dojstate or us

anna joyce doj state orus
Attorneys for State Defendants
IN
THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT
COURT

Case
WILLIAM GRIESAR
No 613cv 01834 MC
STATE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SET

DEADLINE FOR THEIR RESPONSE TO
RUMMELL
Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR
CONSOLIDATION
v
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
of Oregon
ROSENBLUM
in his official
her official
in
WOODWARD
State
capacity
as
JENNIFER
her official
in
capacity
ELLEN
capacity
as
Registrar Center for Health Statistics
WALDRUFF
in his official
RANDY
capacity
as

Defendants
Defendants
for
Page 1
a designation
John Kitzhaber Ellen Rosenblum and Jennifer Woodward
of January
STATE DEFENDANTS
RUMMELL
2014
for their
move
this
Court
deadline to respond to the Motion to Consolidate
MOTION TO SET DEADLINE FOR THEIR RESPONSE TO

MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION
PLAINTIFFS
SP3 cjw 4891717 v1

Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971 673 1880
of Justice
Ave Suite
OR 97201
Fax
410
971 673 5000
filed
by
the plaintiffs
in
do not oppose
plaintiffs
Rummell
this
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al No
by
the
calculated
moving
parties
the deadlines
Rummell
differently
January
and January
The
State
13
Defendants
Counsel conferred
Defendants
will
file
counsel
yesterday
a response by
date
This motion
by
had been served with the Complaint
counsel and the State
plaintiffs
and agreed on January 8 for the States response
that
Rummell
motion
Because the motion was filed before the Defendants
filed
6 13cv 02256 TC The
the
Declaration
DATED
is
made
of Sheila
January
good faith and
in
H Potter
is
not made for purposes of delay
It
is
supported
concurrently
filed
2014
Respectfully
submitted
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
H POTTER
SHEILA
Deputy
ANNA
M JOYCE
Solicitor
Trial
993485
Chief Trial Counsel
013112
General
Attorneys
sheila potter doj state or us

Of Attorneys
Page 2
STATE DEFENDANTS
RUMMELL
for State
Defendants
MOTION TO SET DEADLINE FOR THEIR RESPONSE TO

MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION
PLAINTIFFS
SP3 cjw 4891717 v1

Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971 673 1880
of Justice
Ave Suite
OR 97201
Fax
410
971 673 5000
F ROSENBLUM
ELLEN
Attorney General
H POTTER
SHEILA
Deputy
ANNA
993485
Chief Trial Counsel
M JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
Department
of Justice
1515 SWFifth
Portland
OR
Ave
Suite
410
97201
971 673 1880

Fax 971 673 5000
Telephone
Email Sheila Potter dojstate or us

THE UNITED STATES
IN
DISTRICT
COURT

Case
No 613cv 01834 MC
DECLARATION OF SHEILA H POTTER IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET DEADLINE
FOR STATES RESPONSE
WILLIAM GRIESAR
Plaintiffs
v
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
of Oregon
ROSENBLUM
in
in his official
her official
WOODWARD
State
in
capacity
ELLEN
capacity
as
JENNIFER
her official
capacity
as
WALDRUFF
in his official
RANDY
capacity
as

Defendants
Page 1
Sheila
H Potter
declare
DECLARATION OF SHEILA H POTTER

DEADLINE FOR STATES RESPONSE
IN SUPPORT
SP3 cjw 4891720 v1

Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971 673 1880
of Justice
Ave Suite
OR 97201
Fax
410
971 673 5000
OF MOTION TO SET
and Jennifer
am
one of the attorneys for State
Woodward
make
the
following
statements of
Complaint filed by the moving parties Rummell plaintiffs
at
different
conclusions
regarding the State
No No 6 13cv 02256 TC
Case
the
deadline
we
discovered
Counsel engaged in an amicable
January 8 for the States response
This motion
is
The
made
in
good
Defendants
and productive
faith
on January
and
is
will
file
Defendants
response date
Rummell
et
how we
al
Kitzhaber et
had each calculated
yesterday and agreed on
a response by that date
not made for purposes of delay
is
true and correct
2014
SHEILA
Deputy
Page 2
in
conferral
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
EXECUTED
had been served with the
the disparity in
Defendants
State
knowledge
counsel and the State
In a call yesterday with counsel for the plaintiffs
al
my own
Because the motion was filed before the Defendants
counsel arrived
Ellen Rosenblum
Defendants John Kitzhaber
DECLARATION OF SHEILA H POTTER

DEADLINE FOR STATES RESPONSE
H POTTER
Chief Trial Counsel
IN SUPPORT
SP3 cjw 4891720 v1

Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971 673 1880
of Justice
Ave Suite
OR 97201
Fax
410
971 673 5000
OF MOTION TO SET
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
1 3 2014 3 55 46
Subject
RE
Coie
Johnson
Thomas
Perkins
Jr
Coie
PM
Rummell Geiger
Motion to set deadline as Jan
Potter
Dec
for
Sheila
We
have
Have
no objection
a great
to
this
weekend
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
To
Sheila
Johnson
Subject
mailto
January
Thomas
Rummell
03
sheila
2014
Jr
Geiger
potter
doj state
or us
2 51 PM
Perkins
Motion
to
Coie
Isaak
set deadline
Misha
Perkins
as Jan
Coie
Potter
Dec
for motion to
set
deadline
As promised
here
s what
m getting
ready
to
file
Let
me know
if
anything
in here
sets your
hair on fire
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
attachments
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
IRS
NOTICE
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
CC
Johnson
Sent
1 3 2014 4 34 32
Subject
Re Rummell
Thomas
Coie
R
PM
Jr
Geiger
Perkins Coie
Motion to set deadline
as Jan
Dec
Potter
for
Thanks
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jan 3
2014
of
at
Justice
4 13 PM
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
misaak
perkinscoie
com
wrote
Sheila
We
have
Have
no objection
a great
to
this
weekend
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
To
Sheila
Johnson
Subject
deadline
Thomas
Rummell
As promised
January
mailto
03
Jr
Geiger
here
s what
sheila
2014
Perkins
Motion
potter
doj state
or us
2 51 PM
to
Coie
Isaak
set deadline
m getting
ready
to
Misha
Perkins
as Jan
file
Let
Coie
Potter
me know
if
Dec
for motion to
anything
in here
set
sets
your hair on fire

CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
IRS
NOTICE
keep
information
applicable
CIRCULAR
230
we
NOTICE
privileged
you have
received
contents
confidential
DISCLOSURE
that
marketing
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
To
ensure
unless
compliance
expressly indicated
otherwise
and
IRS
any federal
tax advice

is not intended or written by
cannot be used by the taxpayer
for the purpose of
i
or recommending
to
taxpayer
another
party
under
the
Internal
any transaction
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
ii
addressed
or any attachments
This
received
message
is
you are not
the
inform you that
penalties
promoting
have
If
that
contained
Perkins Coie LLP to be used
and
herein
that
from your system
regulations
avoiding
law
and
communication
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
please advise
without
privileged
or other
the
by reply email
copying
sender
or disclosing
the
confidential
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 8 2014 4 48 30
Subject
Geiger
Notice
This communication
intended
Sheila
recipient
for
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
Nice response
Lea Ann
with
including
avoiding
any attachments
individual
this
notified
Notice 2
PM
including
specific
and are hereby
attachments
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
and
is strictly
IRS regulations
any attachments
party
is
we
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the

distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
not intended
to another
contain
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
herein
in this
for the
or
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 8 2014 4 49 38
Subject
RE
Thank
you
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
To
Tried
Ann
Potter
Subject
very
Easton
hard
to
mailto
January
Sheila
PM
Geiger
08
keep
both
LEaston
2014
feet
on the
tightrope
dorsayindianlaw
com
4 48 PM
Geiger
Notice
communication
This
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
may contain
purpose
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
be used
promoting
herein
Nice
Lea
comply
response
Ann
with IRS
regulations
for the
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
party
any U S
is
under
not
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 9 2014 9 45 51
Subject
Utah 10th Circuit Appeal
Sheila
This communication
Notice
intended
recipient
for
AM
including
specific
Notice 2
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
that
it
and purpose
communication
and
is strictly
any attachments
party
is
we
any transaction
by law
you are not the
If
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
not intended
to
to another
contain
IRS regulations
including
avoiding
recommending
this
notified
may
any attachments
individual
you should delete
and are hereby
attachments
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
Hi Sheila
have been
case
in
They
contact
During our discussions
Oregon
am
will
with the attorneys
are working
be
on
submitting or participating
Thanks
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Portland
SW
OR
503 790 9060
Columbia
97258
who
are litigating
Kitchen
et al v Herbert
et al the Utah
same sex marriage
to the Tenth Circuit
mentioned Oregon s
bothering you
Suite 440
the appeal
in
participation
amici brief for
in
amici briefs in Windsor

and Perry
th
10
Circuit
case
wasn
and am wondering
sure who to bother about
it
if
so
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 9 2014 9 59 40
Subject
RE
That
and
s a great
question
we
a client
d need
sure that
state
some
my guess is
position
states
brief is
comfort
But
Whoever
will
course
specific
whether
know
haven
if
to
heard
bill
write one
Alabama
writes
of
with the
you today
know
agency
with an invitation
amicus
tell
state
AM
Utah 10th Circuit Appeal
of
Michigan
brief will
depends
arguments
and
language
don
we
ve
been
s on her way
to
Hawaii
court
will
to
Whether
not
Ellen
s decision
and
but
some
in support
other
of
Utah
Solicitors
General
in all
signs
another
state
onto
position
in them
written here
structure
write one
the
only on the
used
brief being
our funding
Utah
around
sign
and
She
the
it
her call
she would
an amicus
under
or Ohio
send
for their AGs to
about
time
in support
Arizona
each
anything
for the
so even
taken
Ellen
but
the
s
also on her
herself couldn
sign on
asked
to
today
either write or participate
Anna
but
ask if
ll
drop
her a line and
Joyce
our SG
will
she s heard
anything
From
Lea
Sent
Thursday
To
Ann
Potter
Subject
Easton
Sheila
Utah
Notice
This
mailto
January
09
LEaston
2014
Circuit Appeal
communication
including
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
com
10th
information
the
dorsayindianlaw
9 46 AM
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
may contain
purpose
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Hi Sheila
I
have
the
been
Utah
in contact
same
with the
sex marriage case
During our discussions

Perry
and
am wondering
Circuit case
wasn
I
if
Lea
Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
503
790
1 SW
OR
9060
LLP
Columbia
97258
They
mentioned
Oregon
sure who
Thanks
attorneys who
Oregon
will
to
are litigating
are working
on the
Kitchen
appeal
s participation
to
in amici
be submitting or participating
bother
about
it
so I
et
the
am bothering
al v
Tenth
briefs
et
al
Circuit
in Windsor
in amici
you
Herbert
and
brief for 10th
From
To
Potter
Sent
1 9 2014 5 37 09
Subject
Geiger
Sheila
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
Lea Ann Easton
PM
MSJ
Dear Sheila and Kate
We
are finalizing the
Lake James
MSJ
in
preparation
for filing
though
it
will
likely
be on Monday
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
CC
Potter
Sent
1 9 2014 6 13 07
Subject
Re
FYI
I just
Sheila
Geiger
my clients
learned from
Lea Ann Easton
PM
MSJ
that
we
got served with the
Rummel
on the 27th
complaint
Also
we
are going to
no position on the motion to consolidate
take
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Thu
Jan 9
2014
at
5 37
PM
law works com
lake
wrote
We
are finalizing the
Lake James
MSJ
in
preparation
for filing
though
it
will
likely
be on Monday
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
1 10 2014 12 50 22
Subject
Marco Rubio
was
www
www
Accidentally
Made
huffingtonpost
DOWNLOAD
http
H
AM
Accidentally
reading this article on Huffington Post
Marco Rubio
http
Sheila
thought
For
Gay
Marriage
in
reading
Good Argument For Gay Marriage
com 2014 01 09 marco
HUFFPOST
law works com
and
Made A Good Argument
rubio gay marriage
n 4569472 html
it
too
From
Potter
To
Sent
1 10 2014
Subject
RE
Goodness
That
H
VON TER STEGGE
8 50 10 AM
Sheila
Katharine
Geiger
s later than
MSJ
one
From
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
Sent
Thursday
January
09
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Re
we
Kate
von
Ter
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
Dear
We
Jan 9
com
SW
Ann
take
that
no position
we
988
500
Portland
and
with the
Rummel
complaint
on the
27th
consolidate
at
co
OR
County
Attorney
97214
5 37 PM
Lake
James Perriguey
multco us
lake
law
though
it
works
com mailto
lake
law
Kate
the
MSJ
in preparation
for filing
will
likely
be on Monday
Perriguey
Madison
Street
Oregon
97205
227
1928
tel
28503
29 20227
1928
503
334
2340
tel
28503
29 20334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
served
motion to
fax
3377
katevts
Multnomah
503
works
multco us
got
on the
This
served
LLC
Portland
OTLA
was
Easton
Attorney
Suite
2014
James H
Works
1906
a client
6 13 PM
from my clients
County
are finalizing
Law
that
wrote
Sheila
Lake
Lea
to
503
mailto
Thu
learn
Stegge
Assistant
On
are going
Senior
works
katevts
to
Geiger MSJ
just learned
Also
mailto
2014
wants
James Perriguey
Subject
FYI
generally
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
1 10 2014
Subject
Re
Yep
And
VON TER STEGGE

H
8 57 42 AM
Sheila
Geiger
these are the people
MSJ
who
collect
over a billion
dollars in
property tax a y ear and keep track
of
it
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
503 988 3377
Jan 10
Goodness
From
Multnomah
OR
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
2014
Lake
Potter
8 50
AM
Potter
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Cc
at
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
That s later than one generally wants to learn that a client
mailto katevts
multco
was
wrote
served
us
2014 6 13 PM
January 09
Thursday
To
James Perriguey
Subject
FYI
500
multco us
Fri
Sent
Suite
Sheila
Re
I just
Lea Ann Easton
Geiger MSJ
my clients
learned from
that
we
got served with the
Rummel
complaint
on the 27th
no position on the motion to consolidate
take
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
On Thu
Jan 9
2014
at
5 37
PM
lake
law works com
wrote
We
are finalizing the
Lake James
MSJ
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
in
preparation
for filing
though
it
will
likely
be on Monday
Also
we
are going to
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Sent
1 10 2014
Subject
RE
It
s nice
that
they
From
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
VON TER
Sheila
Re
Yep
And
these
keep
track
Kate
von
of
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
8 58 AM
Jan 10
potter
people
County
who
Suite
988
500
katevts
co
2014
8 50 AM
at
s later than
one
VON TER
STEGGE
January
09
Sheila
Re
Kate
von
Ter
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
Dear
We
Attorney
97214
mailto
2014
Sheila
sheila
generally
multco us
potter
wants
katevts
to
doj state
learn
that
or us
wrote
a client
multco us mailto
katevts
was
served
multco us
6 13 PM
mailto
Jan 9
com
Sheila
James H
Ann
Easton
from my clients
to
take
that
no position
Attorney
Suite
503
2014
500
988
katevts
we
got
on the
served
with the
motion to
Rummel
complaint
on the
consolidate
at
Portland
3138
co
Multnomah
503
988
OR
County
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
3377
5 37 PM
Lake
James Perriguey
fax
multco us
lake
law
though
it
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
and
Kate
are finalizing
Lake
Lea
County
tel
3138
katevts
Thu
County
Stegge
Assistant
On
are going
Senior
works
dollars in property tax a year and
Geiger MSJ
just learned
we
exciting
James Perriguey
Subject
Also
OR
Potter
or us mailto
Thursday
FYI
a billion
Katharine
Potter
your job stays
fax
3377
From
Lake
that
multco us
over
Multnomah
Portland
Sent
Cc
katevts
collect
Attorney
doj state
That
To
ensure
503
mailto
Goodness
mailto
2014
to
Stegge
501
Fri
STEGGE
10
are the
Assistant
sheila
for ways
it
Senior
On
MSJ
Geiger MSJ
Ter
katevts
Geiger
re looking
January
Subject
H
VON TER STEGGE
9 08 52 AM
Sheila
Katharine
the
MSJ
Perriguey
in preparation
for filing
will
likely
be on Monday
27th
Law
Works
1906
SW
LLC
Madison
Portland
Street
Oregon
97205
503
227
1928
tel
28503
29 20227
1928
503
334
2340
tel
28503
29 20334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
Civil
PRINT
lake
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
the
law
keep
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
com
and
information
that
applicable
that
works
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
the
to
and
intended
lake
law
attachments
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
law
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
CONSERVE
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
com http
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 10 2014 10 47 07
Subject
Update from Rummell lawyers
got
a call
a proposed
from the
schedule
Sheila
Rummell
if
the
AM
lawyers
court
orders
today
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
of
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
Trial Counsel
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
5000
three
of
them
consolidation
anyway
Do
the
Jennifer
two of
Tom
you have
and
Misha
about
time for a call
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 10 2014 10 55 36
Subject
Rummell lawyers
Sheila
Lake Perriguey
AM
over noon hour or possibly around 2
could
pm
am
in
a meeting
all
day today
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Lake
got a
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton
from the Rummell lawyers
call
Portland
Phone
Do
them anyway
the
two
Jennifer
Tom
of you have time for a
and
call
Misha
about a proposed
today
Potter
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
SW
three of
the court orders consolidation
if
Deputy Chief
1515
doj state or us
potter
2014 10 47 AM
schedule
Sheila
January 10
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
1 10 2014 11 23 28
Subject
Re Rummell
am
available
AM
lawyers
also during the noon hour and most other times today
Lake James
Sheila
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Oregon
Portland
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On
Jan 10
2014
at
AM
10 55
Lea Ann Easton
could
LEaston
pm
am
in
dorsayindianlaw
a meeting
all
com
wrote
day today
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Lake
got a
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton
call
SW
Phone
Do
them anyway
the
two
Jennifer
Tom
and
call
Misha
about a proposed
today
Potter
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
Portland
three of
if
Deputy Chief
1515
doj state or us
potter
2014 10 47 AM
schedule
Sheila
January 10
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
Avenue
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Potter
Sent
1 10 2014 11 28 52
Subject
RE
Would 12 30 work
Sheila
H
AM
Rummell lawyers
everyone
for
Lea Ann
From
Lake
Sent
Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Subject
am
Sheila
Re
2014 11 23 AM
Rummell lawyers
available
Lake James
com
law works
mailto lake
January 10
Friday
noon hour and most
also during the
other times today
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
97205
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
law works com
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
or privileged
immediately by return e mail with a copy to
On
Jan 10 2014
10 55
at
AM
lake
If
you are not the
Lea Ann Easton LEaston
could
information
pm
am
in
this e
ntended
dorsayindianlaw
a meeting
all
recipient
mail and
com
all
please notify the
copies
sender
and attachments
wrote
day today
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Lake
got a
mailto sheila
call
if
SW
Portland
three of
Do
Potter
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
Phone
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
Deputy Chief
1515
potter
2014 10 47 AM
schedule
Sheila
January 10
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
them anyway
the
two
Jennifer
Tom
and
call
Misha
today
about a proposed
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 10 2014 11 29 15
Lake Perriguey
Subject
RE
AM
Rummell lawyers
Yup
From
Lea
Sent
Friday
Ann
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Lea
10
Sheila
RE
12 30 work
Lake
Friday
To
Lea
Cc
Potter
for everyone
Law
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
PLEASE DON
of
com http
Civil
hour
and
most other
times
today
PRINT
com mailto
CONSERVE
lake
2014
at
noon
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
the
law
hour
or privileged
sender
works
10 55 AM
dorsayindianlaw
over
www
Justice
please notify
Jan 10
immediately
com
Lea
and
Ann
com mailto
or possibly
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
the
to
and
intended
lake
law
attachments
Easton
LEaston
around
dorsayindianlaw
2 pm
com
wrote
am in a meeting
all
day today
Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
To
works
e mail may contain
recipient
Lea
law
Guardian
could
noon
97205
227
lagojaime
LEaston
the
Street
Oregon
skype
works
com
Perriguey
www
This
works
lawyers
also during
http
OTLA
law
11 23 AM
LLC
Portland
T
lake
2014
Rummell
James H
1906
10
Easton
Sheila
Re
Works
mailto
January
am available
Lake
Lake
Subject
I
com
lawyers
Perriguey
Ann
Subject
dorsayindianlaw
11 29 AM
Ann
Sent
On
LEaston
2014
Rummell
From
mailto
January
Perriguey
Subject
Would
Easton
got
Sheila
Perriguey
Update
a call
a proposed
mailto
January
10
Lea
Ann
from the
the
lawyers
court
orders
today
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
Portland
Phone
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
CONFIDENTIALITY
FAX
NOTICE
doj state
or us
lawyers
Rummell
if
potter
10 47 AM
Easton
from Rummell
schedule
sheila
2014
971
673
5000
three
of
them
consolidation
anyway
Do
the
Jennifer
two of
Tom
you have
and
Misha
about
time for a call
This
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
1 10 2014 11 32 39
Subject
Re Rummell
Sheila
H
AM
lawyers
Yes
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

may
This e mail
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On
Jan 10
2014
at
Would 12 30 work
11 28
AM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
wrote
everyone
for
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Lake
Perriguey
Friday
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Subject
am
Sheila
Re
law works
com
2014 11 23 AM
Rummell lawyers
available
Lake James
mailto lake
January 10
noon hour and most
also during the
other times today
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
97205
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
OTLA
law works com
lagojaime
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
or privileged
On
Jan 10 2014
at
10 55
AM
lake
information
If
you are not the
this e
ntended
recipient
mail and
dorsayindianlaw
com
all
please notify the
copies
wrote
sender
and attachments
could
pm
am
in
a meeting
all
day today
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Lake
got a
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton
call
SW
Phone
Do
them anyway
the
two
Jennifer
Tom
and
call
Misha
about a proposed
today
Potter
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
Portland
three of
if
Deputy Chief
1515
doj state or us
potter
2014 10 47 AM
schedule
Sheila
January 10
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
Avenue
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Potter
Sent
1 10 2014 11 35 20
Subject
RE
12 30
From
Sent
it
Lake
Perriguey
Friday
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Re
mailto lake
AM
call in
number
law works
for
the call today
712 432 1100Participant s Code
102390
com
2014 11 33 AM
January 10
To
Rummell lawyers
Here s a conference
is
Subject
Sheila
Rummell lawyers
Yes
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
97205
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
law works com
lagojaime
OTLA
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
or privileged
On
Jan 10 2014
at 11
Would 12 30 work
28
AM
lake
information
If
you are not the
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Lake
Perriguey
Friday
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Subject
am
Sheila
Re
law works
com
2014 11 23 AM
Rummell lawyers
available
Lake James
mailto lake
January 10
also during the
noon hour and most
other times today
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
97205
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
skype
OTLA
www
law works com
lagojaime
PLEASE DON T PRINT
CONSERVE RESOURCES
ntended
this e
dorsayindianlaw
everyone
for
recipient
mail and
com
all
wrote
please notify the
copies
sender
and attachments
This e mail
may contain
confidential
or privileged
On
Jan 10 2014
10 55
at
AM
If
you are not the
could
information
lake
pm
am
in
this e
ntended
dorsayindianlaw
a meeting
all
recipient
mail and
com
all
please notify the
sender
and attachments
copies
wrote
day today
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Lake
got a
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton
call
Portland
Phone
Do
them anyway
the
two
Jennifer
Tom
and
call
Misha
about a proposed
today
Potter
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
SW
three of
if
Deputy Chief
1515
doj state or us
potter
2014 10 47 AM
schedule
Sheila
January 10
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
1 10 2014 11 40 57
Subject
Re Rummell
Is
it
the lawyers for
all
Lake James
BRO
Sheila
Or
H
AM
lawyers
just
the three of us
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

may
This e mail
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On
Jan 10
12 30
From
Sent
it
2014
at
AM
Lea Ann Easton
Here s a conference
is
Lake
Perriguey
Friday
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Re
mailto lake
call in
number
law works
LEaston
for
com
dorsayindianlaw
the call today
wrote
102390
com
2014 11 33 AM
January 10
To
Subject
11 35
Rummell lawyers
Yes
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
97205
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
OTLA
law works com
lagojaime
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
or privileged
On
Jan 10 2014
Would 12 30 work
at 11
for
28
AM
everyone
lake
information
If
you are not the
ntended
this e
dorsayindianlaw
recipient
mail and
com
all
wrote
please notify the
copies
sender
and attachments
Lea Ann
From
Lake
Sent
Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Subject
am
Rummell lawyers
available
Lake James
2014 11 23 AM
Sheila
Re
com
law works
mailto lake
January 10
Friday
noon hour and most
also during the
other times today
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
97205
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
law works com
lagojaime
OTLA
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
or privileged
On
Jan 10 2014
10 55
at
AM
If
you are not the
could
information
lake
pm
am
in
this e
ntended
dorsayindianlaw
a meeting
all
recipient
mail and
com
all
please notify the
sender
and attachments
copies
wrote
day today
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Lake
got a
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton
call
SW
Phone
Do
them anyway
the
two
Jennifer
Tom
and
call
Misha
about a proposed
today
Potter
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
Portland
three of
if
Deputy Chief
1515
doj state or us
potter
2014 10 47 AM
schedule
Sheila
January 10
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
Avenue
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Potter
Sent
1 10 2014 11 50 59
Subject
Re Rummell
Sheila
H
AM
lawyers
Just the three of us
On
Is
Jan 10
it
2014
11 41
at
the lawyers for
all
Lake James
AM
BRO
Lake Perriguey
Or
just
law works com
lake
wrote
the three of us
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

may
This e mail
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On
Jan 10
12 30
From
Sent
it
2014
at
AM
Lea Ann Easton
Here s a conference
is
Lake
Perriguey
Friday
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Re
mailto lake
call in
number
law works
LEaston
for
com
dorsayindianlaw
the call today
wrote
102390
com
2014 11 33 AM
January 10
To
Subject
11 35
Rummell lawyers
Yes
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
OTLA
law works com
lagojaime
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
or privileged
On
Jan 10 2014
at 11
28
AM
lake
information
If
you are not the
ntended
this e
dorsayindianlaw
recipient
mail and
com
all
wrote
please notify the
copies
sender
and attachments
Would 12 30 work
everyone
for
Lea Ann
From
Lake
Sent
Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Subject
am
Rummell lawyers
available
Lake James
2014 11 23 AM
Sheila
Re
com
law works
mailto lake
January 10
Friday
noon hour and most
also during the
other times today
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
97205
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
law works com
lagojaime
OTLA
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may contain
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
or privileged
On
Jan 10 2014
10 55
at
AM
If
you are not the
could
information
lake
pm
am
in
this e
ntended
dorsayindianlaw
a meeting
all
recipient
mail and
com
all
please notify the
sender
and attachments
copies
wrote
day today
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Lake
got a
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton
call
SW
Phone
Do
them anyway
the
two
Jennifer
Tom
and
call
Misha
about a proposed
today
Potter
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
Portland
three of
if
Deputy Chief
1515
doj state or us
potter
2014 10 47 AM
schedule
Sheila
January 10
Perriguey
Subject
Sheila
Avenue
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
the message
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 10 2014 12 03 24
Subject
RE
PM
Rummell lawyers
Yup
From
Lea
Sent
Friday
Ann
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
mailto
January
10
LEaston
2014
dorsayindianlaw
com
11 51 AM
Perriguey
Sheila
Subject
Re
Just the
three
On
Easton
Jan 10
Rummell
of
2014
lawyers
us
at
11 41 AM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
you are not
the
intended
wrote
Is it
Lake
Law
all
the
lawyers
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
Jan 10
CONSERVE
lake
2014
at
30 it
is
Here
the
law
Lake
Sent
Friday
To
Lea
Cc
Potter
Ann
Subject
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
com
Lea
and
Ann
com mailto
s a conference
delete
information
by return
If
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
lake
law
attachments
Easton
LEaston
call
dorsayindianlaw
in number
for the
com
call
wrote
today
712
432
1100
102390
Perriguey
From
works
RESOURCES
11 35 AM
s Code
law
confidential
dorsayindianlaw
Participant
www
Justice
please notify
com mailto
LEaston
12
works
e mail may contain
recipient
On
us
97205
227
skype
works
of
Street
Oregon
www
This
three
Perriguey
http
OTLA
Or just the
LLC
Portland
T
for BRO
mailto
January
10
lake
2014
law
works
com
11 33 AM
Easton
Sheila
Re
Rummell
lawyers
Yes
James H
Lake
Law
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
PLEASE DON
This
works
of
com http
Civil
PRINT
CONSERVE
lake
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
com mailto
www
Justice
e mail may contain
recipient
works
law
97205
law
the
sender
works
com
or privileged
immediately
and
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
to
and
the
intended
lake
law
attachments
On
Jan 10
LEaston
Would
Lea
2014
12 30 work
Lake
Sent
Friday
To
Lea
Cc
Potter
Lake
Law
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
PLEASE DON
noon
of
com http
Civil
hour
and
most other
times
today
PRINT
com mailto
CONSERVE
lake
2014
at
noon
law
works
com
RESOURCES
confidential
the
law
hour
or privileged
sender
works
10 55 AM
dorsayindianlaw
over
www
Justice
please notify
Jan 10
immediately
com
Lea
and
Ann
com mailto
or possibly
delete
information
by return
If
you are not
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
all
copies
the
to
and
intended
lake
law
attachments
Easton
LEaston
around
dorsayindianlaw
2 pm
com
wrote
am in a meeting
all
day today
Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
To
works
e mail may contain
recipient
Lea
law
Guardian
could
the
97205
227
lagojaime
LEaston
com
Street
Oregon
skype
works
works
Perriguey
www
This
law
11 23 AM
lawyers
also during
http
OTLA
lake
2014
LLC
Portland
T
10
Rummell
James H
1906
Lake
Subject
I
Ann
Easton
Sheila
Re
Works
mailto
January
am available
Lea
com mailto
for everyone
Perriguey
Ann
Subject
On
11 28 AM
Ann
From
at
dorsayindianlaw
got
Sheila
Perriguey
Update
a call
a proposed
mailto
January
10
Lea
Ann
from the
the
doj state
or us
lawyers
Rummell
if
potter
10 47 AM
Easton
from Rummell
schedule
sheila
2014
lawyers
court
three
orders
of
them
anyway
consolidation
Do
the
Jennifer
two of
Tom
and
you have
Misha
about
time for a call
today
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
of
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
Trial Counsel
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Potter
To
Johnson
Sheila
Thomas
misaak
Sent
1 14 2014 10 34 06
Subject
Amended
Just checking
you will
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
Perkins Coie
com
us an amended
Trial Counsel
Justice
Suite
Phone
FAX
673
1880
TRJohnson
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
com
AM
Potter
of
JMiddleton
complaint
be sending
1515 SW Fifth Avenue

Portland
OR 97201
971
Jr
perkinscoie
410
971
673
5000
complaint
soon
com
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
1 14 2014 10 36 04
Subject
RE
Yes
sorry for
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
AM
Amended complaint
the delay on this Sheila
out yesterday
Coie
Johnson
came down
which accounts for the delay
We
will
with
the same cold that everyone
get you something later today
or
else in
Portland
seems
to
have and was
tomorrow
Misha
Misha Isaak
From
Potter
Sent
To
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
Sheila
Tuesday
you
Jr
Perkins
SW
Portland
Trial
OR
This e mail
may
jjlslaw
com
NOTICE
please advise
the message
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
you have received
that
idential
this
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

or written
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
any transaction
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
JMiddleton
FAX 971 673 5000
e mail in error
advise
Coie
97201
If
NOTICE
Perkins
Suite 410
applicable law
party
Misha
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
CONFIDENTIALITY
that
Isaak
Counsel
971 673 1880
intended
Coie
be sending us an amended complaint soon
will
Oregon Department
Phone
doj state or us
Potter
Deputy Chief
1515
potter
2014 10 34 AM
Amended complaint
Just checking
Sheila
mailto sheila
Thomas R
Johnson
Subject
January 14
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
To
H
Perkins Coie
Sent
1 14 2014 10 37 22
Subject
RE
No
problem
and
Thomas
Johnson
Perkins Coie
Jr
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
AM
Amended complaint
sorry about
the
cold
It
took
me down
this weekend
too
Bleah
Sheila
From
Isaak
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Subject
Yes
Misha
Sheila
RE
Perkins
January
H
seems to
something
Coie
2014
Johnson
Amended
sorry for the
Portland
14
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
10 36 AM
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
complaint
delay
have
later today
on this
and
was
Sheila
out
came
yesterday
down
which
with the
accounts
same
cold
for the
that
delay
everyone
We
will
else in
get
you
or tomorrow
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Potter
Sent
Tuesday
To
Sheila
Johnson
JMiddleton
Subject
Thomas
jjlslaw
Amended
Chief
Oregon
Department
Jr
OR
971
of
or us
Perkins
Coie
JMiddleton
Isaak
jjlslaw
Misha
Perkins
Coie
com
be sending
us an amended
complaint
soon
Justice
Suite
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
673
the
law
If
received
contents
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
5000
information
you have
keep
regulations
contained
971
applicable
that
reply e mail
attachments
410
NOTICE
e mail may contain
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
doj state
97201
673
disclosure
have
potter
10 34 AM
Trial Counsel
Fifth Avenue
Perkins
sheila
2014
com mailto
CONFIDENTIALITY
IRS
14
Potter
Portland
This
mailto
you will
Deputy
Phone
LLP
complaint
Sheila
SW
January
Just checking
1515
Coie
2086
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
1 14 2014 2 17 59
Subject
Human
http
www
hrc org
mu
http
www
law works com
Sheila
H
PM
Rights Campaign
district
judge
rules
oklahoma
ban on marriage equality unconstitutiona
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Johnson
Sent
1 14 2014 4 05 17
Subject
Rummell Complaint
Attachments
Amended
Thomas
Coie
R Jr
PM
Perkins Coie
Modified
Complaint
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
Prayer for Relief
DOCX
marriage case
COMPARE DOC
Amended
Complaint
marriage
case docx
Sheila
Thanks
for conferring
with
portions
of
the domestic
Attached
to this
As
on the phone
said
any suggestion
email
me
this
afternoon
relations statutes
we
a modified Prayer
is
we
would
like
to
we may have
think
same sex couples from the
State actions excluding
rights
would
like
for Relief
arrived at language
obligations
of
that
is
both broad enough to enjoin
marriageand also specific
enough
all
to identify
found unconstitutional
and a
accommodate
from you about what language
and
redline
document
your concern as best
showingthe changes from our current complaint
we
can
so if this doesn
do
we
it
would welcome
would
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
IRS CIRCULAR
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
Thomas
OSB No
Johnson
TRJohnson
Holm OSB No
Kristina J
KDiaz
aclu
PERKINS COIE
Facsimile
OR
Portland
Telephone
OR
Telephone
97209 4128
RSaxe
aclu org
Amanda Goad
AGoad
OSB No
Middleton
Jennifer
JOHNSON JOHNSON
975 Oak Street
OR
Eugene
Telephone
vice
UNION
CIVIL LIBERTIES
FOUNDATION
SCHALLER
125 Broad Street
PC
New
Suite 1050
97401
York
Telephone
541 683 2506
Facsimile
NY
18th Floor
10004
212 549 2627

212 549 2650
541 484 0882
Facsimile
Cooperating
ACLU
pro hac
aclu org
AMERICAN
071510
com
jjlslaw
503 227 6948
Rose Saxe pro hac vice
503 727 2000
JMiddleton
97240
503 227 6928
Tenth Floor
Street
503 727 2222
Facsimile
INC
Box 40585
Portland
LLP
Couch
970480
or org
ACLU FOUNDATION OF OREGON
112607
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
MIsaak
perkinscoie com
1120
OSB No
Kevin Daz
010645
com
perkinscoie
Foundation of Oregon
Inc

DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
PAUL
LISA
RUMMELL
BENJAMIN WEST
and CHRISTINE TANNER
and
CHICKADONZ
No
6 13 cv 02256
TC

Plaintiffs
AMENDED COMPLAINT
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
in
her official
capacity
Statistics
capacity
JENNIFER
WOODWARD
as State Registrar
in his official
Pursuant to 42
1983
as Attorney
in
Center for
RANDY WALRUFF
Multnomah
ELLEN
of Oregon
her official
General of Oregon
Health
in his official
as Governor
ROSENBLUM
AND
FOR DECLARATORY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
and
capacity
as
County Assessor
Defendants
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
INTRODUCTION
Tanner are two loving
not
Paul Rummell and
Plaintiffs
committed
42
US C
1983
through
sex couples
education
seeking declaratory
jamin West
that works to advance
for profit organization
same
Ben
Amendment
and
and Lisa Chickadonz
and advocacy
injunctive
Plaintiffs
in
couples a dignity and status of immense import
marriage
Since
which
partnerships
offer
amended
to marry
in
result
2004 to
only
Yet
from marrying as a
2008
Oregon has allowed
some
Oregon
On
a legal opinion
that
the Deputy
States
same
and
their
and provide
none of the
sex couples in Oregon are barred
sex couples
Windsor
The
next day
Mi
chael
outside
the State continues
after
who
the
the Chief Operating
Jordan
of Oregon
directed
all
1120
state
including
to refuse to allow same
sex
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
sex couples
marriages performed
Nevertheless
enduring
sex
all
AMENDED COMPLAINT
confers upon
by excluding them from the freedo
agencies
sex couples
It
and because the Oregon Constitution was
together
life
of marriage
and
recognized
refusing to do so would likely be unconstitutional
decision in United
marriages of same
lly
the State could begin to respect the marriages of same
because
right
sex couples to enter into domestic
out lesbian and gay Oregonians
October 16 2013
married in other states
Supreme Court
same
statutes
based solely on their sexual orientation
and
of Oregon
of Oregon to different
and other committed
of existing
single
state
Plaintiffs
state
Plaintiffs
through
society as the universa
of a couple s commitment to build family
celebrated hallmark
is
States Constitution caused by the exclusion of
to the United
gay bisexual
relief
same sex couples from the freedom to marry under the laws of the
Education Fund
Basic Rights
Plaintiff
and Christine
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
couples to marry in Oregon
entities
like
The
exclusion
from marriage
For example
marry for the same reasons as
commitment before
family
their
friends
Plaintiff
organization
that
that
Basic Rights
Plaintiffs
not other
exclude same
Ben
and wish to
are unmarried
to publicly declare their love and
Education Fund
Basic Rights
their child
Th
a statewide civil
is
and advocacy
education
and
it
is
rights
ese efforts include opposition
sex couples
sex
has a long history of public
marriage for same
Paul and
harms upon same
and community and to give one another and
and transgender individuals
bisexual
serious and irreparable
inflicts
sex couples
different
the security and protections
gay
Jordan s directive
L B
Mr
Further
on
to restrictions
active in ongoing
efforts to repeal that
provision
Our
courts and our society have discarded
the Constitution s mandate of equality
violated
denied married women legal independence
discriminatory laws
enhanced
To
the contrary
Indeed
and the
right
of marriage does
anti
to
marriage laws that
as of today
17
in
make
decisions for themselves
not depend
on maintaining such
states
and the
District
laws and laws that
miscegenation
restrictions
Ending the exclusion of lesbian and gay couples
the institution
different
such as
one by one
rom
of Columbia same
has
marriage
is
no
sex couples are
marrying and the institution of marriage continues to thrive
Plaintiffs
of the law
this suit
pursuant to 42
the State s exclusion of same
AMENDED COMPLAINT
eans to secure their rights to
and to eliminate the myriad serious harms
enforcement
that
of
it
and
Accordingly
injunctive
sex couples from marriage through
Plaintiffs
relief
bring
on the grounds
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
inflicted
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
and Oregon
statutes violates
Amendment
to the United
States Constitution
PARTIES
II
Plaintiffs
Paul Rummell
Oregon
Portland
Paul
Paul
age 43
is
Ben
and Benjamin West
a veteran of the United
States Air Force
the theatre arts
and for the
age 35 worked
for twelve years in the financial services industry and
in
Oregon and had
Paul and
walked into a pub
conversation
during
friends
Gay
because
a Pride block party
because
it
was
walking
kiss after
after
Paul and
currently in a program
Ben were born and
raised
upbringings
Ben met
some
is
in
Ben
nine years has been working in the renewable energy field
2015 to become a registered nurse
religious
father
in
last
the past worked
in
Father s
Day
Their
Pride in 2006
As soon
was
Paul
fact
first
around Portland for hours
that
date
struck by his presence
Ben had
Ben
as
They started up a
spent time earlier in the day with
the following
evening
ended with a
his
single
They began seeing each other regularly and
after
10
Paul and
household
income to
married
Ben have combined
they were denied a low
qualify
However
interest
Fortunately
Ben
are concerned
sometime
in
Even though they
veteran s loan because
a house
Paul s employer provides
about what might happen
live
they needed
to include
they
but not at the more favorable
coverage
if
In 2010
Paul and
Ben knew
they wanted to be committed
though they could not marry under Oregon law
AMENDED COMPLAINT
were not
but Paul and
Paul has to change
or their respective faiths
to one another
jobs
Perkins Coie
1120
Even
they decided to hold a
Couch Street
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Ben
veteran s interest
domestic partner insurance benefits
to their medical
as one
the future
11
finances
they were unable to include his income because
They ultimately did purchase
rate
their
Phone
Fax
OR
LLP
Tenth Floor
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
wedding
like
ceremony to declare
on August 21 2010
place
Mayor Sam Adams

parents attended
very
much wants
12
with family and frien ds present
to officiate
Ben
to
declined
to have a civil
make
Paul
the proceedings
was
feel
of what
Paul an d
They ultimately decided they wanted to become
children
who had been

home
home
respite
13
placed
with Paul and
LB
L B
Ben
Ben worked
Paul and
developed a deep parental love for him
14
without
Paul and
Ben want
than anyone else s family
and
especially
officials
to
make
Ben completed
Ben
their relationship
to
term placements of three children
that their
LB
L B
grows up
family
about
L B
they are concerned
LB
was
term placement
LB
and
the process
in
and are now waiting for the
is
a safe and stable
worthy of dignity and respect
being teased or bullied
L B
home
peers
about whether
may
by
his
not understand
or not their relationship
would be recognized by other people or government
legally
new
less
in
ma
rried in
Oregon
but so that they will have the important legal
family
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
of
the likelihood of finding a long
are a same sex couple and
they travel
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
all
children
sure that
of marriage and he
to focus on helping
Paul and
They decided to adopt
from society
They very much want to be
protections
parents
life
necessary
extensively
They are concerned
classmates because Paul and
When
to be finalized
the repeated message
their relationship
made
then
Although Paul
a six year old boy with serious behavioral issues
history
foster
in
Portland
represents
it
they had long
care for almost ten additional
In June of 2012
for him very low
last
checks
In the course of about a year and a half
and provided
hand
a particularly difficult
and background
studies
more legitimate
Ben were
fathers
the training
Ben asked
Paul and
raised to believe in the sanctity
marriage because
Early in their relationship
dealt
The ceremony took
love and commitment to each other
their
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
15
Lisa Chickadonz
Oregon
professor
that
work
included
age 56
Lisa
Chris age 66
of nursing
in clinical
and Christine Tanner
Lisa
is
is
Chris
a nurse and midwife and also
is
an
assistant
currently semi retired and has had a long career in nursing
research
and administrative
teaching
Both Lisa and
capacities
Chris have lived in Oregon for over 30 years
16
Lisa and Chris met in 1982 and began
had a private commitment ceremony
and
create
in
a family together
raise
home
studies
in
and exchanged
Lisa
1994
is
The
dating in 1985
rings
Shortly thereafter
In addition
The
legal rights
own
all
and
responsibilities
Oregon
wills
to same
wanted to be
Chris
of
so
child
come
that
as close
married couples with respect
the couple shares everything
Again
between each other
dollars
that
they otherwise
they have
and health care
the news broke that Multnomah
March 3 2004
married couples enjoy in Oregon
leg and a lawn chair
their
children so they could
the children were subjected to derogatory
AMENDED COMPLAINT
down
all
They had
to the county building the night before
to be
first
in line
be together as a family
comments about homosexuality
1120
The
following
While waiting
in
from opponents
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
they could
County would begin to issue marriage
stayed out all night
line
LEGAL29023055
if
Doing
issues about the couple s
married for years and headed
with a broken
the same
directives
sex couples on
legally
to approximate
tried
These costs are ongoing and most recently involved
When
18
licenses
was born
of their major assets and have planned for retirement and the possibility of
so has cost them thousands of
respective
Katie
couple did what they could to
to having raised their children together
in
children
children
jointly
marry
they
they decided to
and related expenses to perform second parent adoptions for each
17
They
1986
as possible to creating the same legal rights and responsibilities
two
two
the birth mother for their
to the
In September
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
of marriage
for same
19
that
celebration
Upon
And
family interacted
was no
March 3 2004 by
and celebrated by
involvement
what a
of
and with marriage
how
community
respected
Undaunted
sex couples
their
central
part of their
fellow church members with
life
now
understood
When
represented
it
what
was
to them
whom
Lisa and
and to
their
was acknowledged
their
difference
neighbors
in
how
joined in the
their
extended
their
meant to each other and
their relationship
introducing
entailed
Importantly
the
of
state
love and commitment by granting the same rights a nd
to the couple as any other married couple
able to marry Lisa and Chris memorialized the recognition
21
it
the wedding ceremony
of the level of commitment that relationship
framed marriage
hand
with them
Family members
responsibilities
meaningful
both Lisa and Chris experienced a significant
20
question
in
home from
their arrival
certificate
license in their
by hanging
of their relationship
their
home
Lisa and Chris were devastated
after their
was
marriage
invalidated
by the Oregon
Supreme Court and the passage of Measure 36 which amended the Oregon Constitution to
laws of Oregon
recognized
their
of marriages for same
marriage didn
by the State they
called
If
After the Oregon Legislature
Chris considered whether
recognized
that registering
married again
it
awful
not the same
now
that
was no
if
they were married
ser ves as a painful
reminder
passed a domestic partnership law in 2007
They knew
what
it
was
Lisa and
to be married and
1120
get
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
longer
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
under the
down
or not they should register
was
felt
someone now asked them
22
They
exist
home
sex couples
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
23
Lisa and Chris have been together
and plan to spend the
amongst
friends
24
rest
and family
Plaintiff
in their
for almost 30 years
They want to get
and by
church
their
Education Fund
Basic Rights
organization
dedicated to education about and advocacy
and transgender Oregonians
ensure that
lesbian
all
legally
Basic Rights
Basic Rights
have raised a family
married in Oregon
minister
Basic Rights
organization
bisexual
They
is
is
a not
for profit
a statewide civil
rights
gay
mission statement provides
that
it
will
gay bisexual and transgender Oregonians experience equality by building
a broad and inclusive politically
movement
powerful
shifting
and achieving
public opinion
policy victories
25
Basic Rights
same sex couples
state
recognition
in
has been deeply involved
Oregon
In 2004
County Board of Commissioners
marriage statute
Oregon
The County
marriage statute
to same sex couples
affiliate
entity
nine same
of same
sex couples
work
BRO
Basic Rights and
that
BRO
counsel to assess the constitutionality of Oregon
counsel
both concluded
and the County began to issue marriage
along with the American
Article I
section 20
Civil
that
licenses
Basic Rights
Liberties
that
helped to organize the campaign in opposition
state
Union and
exclusion
to Measure
recognition
of
was an
Basic Rights
challenged the validity of Measure 36 under the Oregon
was
not a
named
party in the suit
Basic Rights
1120
continues
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
that
Measure 36
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
After narrowly losing that campaign
Basic Rights
to repeal or overturn
violates
to prohibit
worked with the Multnomah
amended the Oregon Constitution to prohibit
force behind a lawsuit
although
was amended
a declaratory
for same sex couples
Constitution
for the freedom to marry for
the State Registrar refused to register the licenses
filed
organizing
When
legal
unconstitutional
marriages
to
was
its
Basic Rights
counsel and the State s legislative
Basic Rights Oregon
Later that year
36
and
advocating
of marriage
in
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
26
constituents
exclusion
and Basic Rights
The
exclusion
gay men
of same
of same
sex couples from marriage promotes
and bisexuals are
to diminished
entitled
disproportionately impacts
children
and
living in
poverty
work
respect and
inferior
who
further isolating
homophobia
for Basic Rights
As
the message
a result of the exclusion
and advocate
to innovate
same sex couples
communities
and transphobia
of same
by the
ORS
106 300
expenditure
the public
what
of same
institution
sex couples
including
rights
Domestic
Family Fairness Act creates
sex couples
significant
Basic Rights
to convene
Basic Rights
of
Raising
required a
confusion
about the status
about what domestic partnerships are and
For instance
participated
Basic Rights
created a
to re write forms and state
sex couples
who have been
1120
subject to unequal
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
rights
also regularly fields inquiries about Oregon domestic
partnerships and assists same
AMENDED COMPLAINT
had
must expend resources educating
Partnership Resource Guide to educate
In addition
and
Basic Rights
Basic Rights
they do and do not provide
Labor and Industries
websites
same
Basic Rights
mechanism to ensure
inferior
the Oregon Family Fairness Act
of resources by
the
and bisexuals
for an alternative
in
State s marriage laws
significant
rights
This creates
lesbians
about and promoting the passage of this legislation
and
already experiencing
awareness
The Oregon
This exclusion
rights
inasmuch as Basic Rights must organize
conveyed
of inequality
that
are more likely to be raising
community to promote the equal dignity of gay men
resist
an impression
than equal members of the civic
less
people of color
the impacts of systemic racism
additional
both Basic Rights
For instance
itself
lesbians
community
sex couples from marriage injures
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
treatment
in violation
the expenditure
The
exclusion
of the Oregon Family Fairness Act
resources by
of significant
of same
Due
marriages
identification
of
whom
documents
Basic Rights
relationship
rights
right
confront
are in or wish to enter permanent
uncertainty
transgender
to lesbian
gay
bisexual
and advocacy
other critical
relationship
leaving their relationships
expends resources advising transgender people on
the majority of the organizational
in
Oregonians seeking
of same sex couples to marry in Oregon
importance
engage
who
work
is
that
This limits the organization
For instance
This has been an organizational
nearly five years after the law s passage
are
still
not in compliance
freedom to marry
in
Oregon
it
requires
capacity and resources available to Basic Rights
s ability
Basic Rights worked
priority
of gay and transgender youth being bullied
districts
their
of such fundamental
and
especially
with the law
all
in light
If
third
the
students in
of
committing suicide
more than one
to
to advance
Oregon Safe Schools Act of 2009 to create a safe environment for
Oregon
and
to the complexity and cost of changing gender markers on legal
vulnerable
The
require
Basic Rights
recognition
many
efforts
sex couples from marriage also imposes significant
unique burdens on transgender people
relationships
Thes e
incidents
Nonetheless
of Oregon
school
same sex couples had the
Basic Rights could devote significantly
more
Defendants
27
of Oregon
He
the State s laws
10
is
vested
is
sued
in his offic
ial
capacity as Governor
with the chief executive power of the State
including
the marriage ban
AMENDED COMPLAINT
are faithfully
executed
and has the duty to see
Or Const
1120
art
that
10
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
of the state
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
Governor
Kitzhaber
and
his
subordinates also bear the authority and responsibility for the
formulation and administration
agency
policies
employee
benefits
recognizing
agencies
relating
of the policies
to health insurance coverage
programs
and regulation
ORS
marital status
commissions
including
for
how
US C
administrative
tax obligations
state
of which involve
all
Kitzhaber
appoints the heads of various
sex couples and
they administer laws relating
Kitzhaber
also has authority to remove from office
councils and collegial bodies for misconduct
the obligations
of 42
Governor
including
may remove
to
he
sex couples to marry or to have their valid marriages from other jurisdictions
Governor
recognized
records
the marriages of same
with responsibility for recognizing
of same
vital
branch
of health professions
180 060 10
those appointees for various reasons
ability
of the executive
Governor
state
in
ing a failure to comply
includ
Kitzhaber
law
at
members of boards
with
is
all
complaint
28
General for the state of Oregon
include
enforcement
180 210
of the State s laws
She also has
ull
bureaus of their obligations
power to enforce obligations
tate
under the
including
the Attorney
ORS
of
all
ORS
180 220 1
180 220
180 060
commissions
Ms
to initiate
Rosenblum
and
She also has the
her ability
180 240
her duties
departments
advising such departments
ORS
of the s tate of Oregon
the legal business
all
Constitution
US
capacity a
the marriage exclusion
including
the interests of the State s citizens
her official
chief legal officer
created by the
person within the meaning of 42
sued
and control of
charge
to protect
As the
is
state
law
is
at
suit
all
29
Registrar
Center of Health
Woodward
11
Statistics
duties include directing
AMENDED COMPLAINT
is
sued
in
her official
capacity as the State
and supervising the Center for Health
1120
Statistics
and
its
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Ms
State Registrar
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
system of
records
vital
directing
to the operation
furnishing
forms for the marriage
used
filed
ORS
432 405 1
with relevant
state
Ms Woodward
of state law at
30
ORS
the State
in
is
all
laws
432 405 2
and she
Ms Woodward
Walruff
County
Mr
Walruff
must comply with
exclude same
42
US C
is
sued
and control
state
law
through
in
their
capacity as the County Assessor
marriages
maintaining
performing his duties
Mr
Walruff
if
respective
performed
not enjoined
as well as
32
Plaintiffs
under color of
12
all
state
at
all
rights
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Accordingly
employees
in
the relief
secured
their
direction
aided and or abetted in
and
continue
will
requested herein
direc
tion
some
is
to
sought
or control
and agents
JURISDICTION
that
are responsible for
AND VENUE
C
1983 to redress the deprivation
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
to
participated
law of
records relating
g those laws
includin
persons under their supervision
but not limited to their officers
III
levying and
is
law
state
Each Defendant
intentionally
irreparably
including
of these functions
manner the acts alleged here proximately caused the harm alleged herein
injure Plaintiffs
all
in his official
solemnizing
Defendants
supervision
the State must be filed
and forwarding a record of each marriage to the State Registrar
the State s marriage ban
enforcing
for marriage
duties include issuing marriage licenses
31
in
responsible for
marriages licensed in the county
Mr
is
persons
marriage records that have been
those that currently exclude same
including
all
She
must ensure compliance through
a fee on each marriage license
collecting
432 030
All marriages performed
responsible for registering
is
of
activities
e and application
marriage certificat
license
Defendant Randy Walruff
for Multnomah
ORS
of the system of vital records
pertaining
license
and controlling the
supervising
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
33
This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant
US C
to 28
in
controversy
arise
34
Venue
is
official
reside within the state of Oregon
claims took
Plaintiffs
35
place
1391 b
Procedure
and 28
and
and
part of the events
substantial
all
because
Defendants
gave
that
rise
to the
relief
pursuant
judgment and to provide
to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of
2201 and 2202
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are domiciled
the State
STATEMENT OF FACTS
IV
Plaintiff
37
challenges
couples
Plaintiff
of family
members who
life
freely
Eligibility
to
Marry
couples are residents of Oregon
who
as their heterosexual neighbors
co
may marry
and nurture
their families
their
Plaintiffs
children
status
of marriage
enforcement
The
the rest of the political
and
security
legal
38
and Ben
State s exclusion
of that exclusion
protections
fact that
and Lisa and Chris
in this
families
through
of Plaintiffs
subjects Plaintiffs
afforded
State
AMENDED COMPLAINT
is
and other community
contributing
citizens
from marriage
their
support
dignity
celebrated
and Defendants
second
class
status relative
children of equal
to
dignity
to other Oregon families
they are of the same sex
both of the Plaintiff
to marry under the
over the age of 17
fully
competent
1120
couples
laws of the Oregon
and
is
Paul
and
not precluded
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
who
access to the universally
to an inferior
are legally qualified
Each
workers
productive
community and deprives them and
But for the
wish to marry
are
experience the same joys and
but must do so without the same legal shelter
and respect afforded by the State to other
13
36
in
in
and because a
preliminary and permanent injunctive
Civil
offices
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
from marriage as a
willing
fee
to provide
result
of having another spouse
or being closely related to the other
They are
the requisite inf ormation to receive a marriage license and to pay the required
of marriage
responsibilities

39
In 2004
following a ballot initia tive campaign
amendment to the Oregon Constitution providing
subdivisions
recognized
that
40
leveraging
submitted
Or Const
art
15
is
man and one woman
as marriage
It
voters approved
shall
be
Measure 36 an
and
its
political
or legally
valid
5a
men and
the following statements for publication
in
For instance
lesbians
the statewid
its
passage by
proponents
Pamphlet regarding
e Voters
Measure 36
If
we
forced
to place
Schools
the
foster
and society
will
of same
equality
the state will be
marriage
children in same
sex households
be teaching the next generation
sex marriage
changing our views of
the importance
experimentation
with a behavior that
It
will
and increase
cause kids to question their sexual identity
neither emotionally
is
nor physically healthy
To
radically
and fundamentall
marriage to include
to reject
children
God
what
purpose
and a nation
standing to unnatural
and
irreversible
Vote
Meant
YES
on
to
Be
it
more than
just
God
in
y change
the definition of
considers an
marriage for
Providing
relationships
abomination
is
men women
equivalent legal
will
force devastating
changes to our society
Measure
36
Because
It
the
Way Nature
woman is
Marriage between a man and
about a loving
relationship
it
also about
the laws of nature
MYTH
Homosexuals

the
protections
suffer
serious harm because they re
of marriage
REALITY
Many
of
to same sex couples through
arrangements
14
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
Same
sex marriage
on children
It
want to
it
is
of any sex
polyamory
their
s civil
sic
For example
rights
sister
mother or
brother
And
two
not
it
no
father

spouses
a recurring claim in Voters
had proven same sex
should not also be
marriage
anyone
violate
considered
Also
of
they
to argue larger groups of individuals
difficult
polygamy or
one can marry
having
individuals
marriage as between one female and one male
Defining
does not
41
two
able to marry simply because
sic
able to join in group
untested social experiment
the Oregon Constitution requires
If
the same sex be
a vast
is
never wise or compassionate to
subject children to social experimentation
intentionally
is
Pamphlet statements was
to be unhealthy and bad for children being raised by same
relationships
The Oregon
42
marriage
statute
provides
that
arriage
is
a civil
contract
Numerous
106 010
other Oregon statutes refer to a husband
106 150 1
requires the parties to a marriage to declare that
and wife
Similarly
under
ORS
106 041 1
43
the Oregon
legislature
legislative
that
is
between these two
legally
recognized
AMENDED COMPLAINT
to
join
legal
protections
ORS
not a marriage
recognize
relationships
The
and obligations
issued
as
106 300
ORS
The
Family Fairness Act
106 305 7
In fact
hat numerous distinctions
Legislative
which
of marriag e by
the
will exist
Assembly recognizes
1120
that
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
together
passed the Oregon Family Fairness Act
states
accompanying a properly
the license
same sex couples with some of the
provides
creating
In 2008
in
ORS
For instance
they take each other to be husband
the authorization
conducting
and wife the persons named
husband
and wife
entered
ORS
into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age
15
sex
parents
clearly
studies
that scientific
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
of domestic partnerships under the laws of this state
On
44
and cannot impact
this state
June 26 2013
United
in
Supreme Court struck down the federal

federal government
On
45
Chief Operating
that
from respecting the
October 17 2013
marriages of same
46
likely
denial of such respect
the opinion
compelling
state interest
recognition
in
acknowledge
in
in
Oregon
in
marriages
we
letter
that
would pass
rational basis
Barring same
of
to the
letter
letter states
respect the
ame
muster even
the
much
in
less
Oregon contain one
and no
sex relationships
To
would
injury
result
are given legal
defend a refusal to
and again
at
that
States Constitution
cannot identify any legitimate
continues
Measure 36
but concluded
sex couples
under the United
that
we
the lowest possible level of scrutiny
Same
Sex Couples from Marriage
Inflicts
that
different
Profound
Harm
sex couples rely upon to secure their
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
sex couples from marriage disqualifies them from critically
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
review
important rights and responsibilities
16
may
the state would have to articulate
The State s Exclusion

on Plaintiffs
47
the State
the form of domestic partner registration
constitutional
That
partnerships but refusing to recognize marriages
interest
the
other states
the Deputy
The
2013
sex couples
to Oregon results from that limitation
the marriages
Id
which had prevented the
requiring that each marriage recognized
benefit
2675
Attorney General issued an opinion
of state marriages
noted that
letter
133 S Ct
of Marriage Act
the Deputy
would be unconstitutional
no
Windsor
of out of state marriages of same
Specifically
of each sex
letter
not be effective
contained in federal law
marriages of same
valid
who marry
sex couples
In the opinion
from recognizing
Defense
generally respects out
barred recognition
partner
States
because Oregon
restrictions
may
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
commitment to each other
and to safeguard
By way
their families
of example only
same
sex
couples are denied
The
to solemnize their relationships
ability
The
ceremonies
hrough
state
deprives same
denial of state sanction or recognition
that
sanctioned marriage
come
automatically
sex
with state
sanctioned marriage
The
to safeguard family resources under an
ability
spousal finances
for example
including
the exemption
the other s employment
through
array of laws that protect
that
and the exemption or
of federal taxes
deferral
on
the property of certain elderly or disabled residents
host of federal rights and responsibilities
Code and
for virtually
all
pur poses throughout
Social Security
financial
48
and
local
Many
housing
relating
taxes
harm not only to same
United
Michael Jordan
outside Oregon
governments
responsibilities
contingent
on
Thus
of marriage
entities
this directive
the more than 1 000 statutes and
to marriage
including
laws pertaining
resources
way
of example only
17
AMENDED COMPLAINT
same
Mr
sex couples
state
agencies
of
to recognize
all
marriages
sex couples in Oregon are denied rights and
Jordan s directive
may be
whether government
is
or private
By
denied
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
causing
sex couples but to their children as well
to the extent enjoyment of such rights and responsibilities
not bound by
to
and veterans
copyright
drain fami ly economic
has directed
married same
States
criminal sanctions
entire
Although the Chief Operating Officer for the Oregon Department
Administrative Services
performed
span the
recognition
benefits
that
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
to
ability
make
make
caretaking decisions in
medical decisions for an incapacitated
priority
to
petition
a circuit court
and the automatic
for an autopsy
and
right
priority
to
and
times of death
the automatic
make
spouse
the ability
to
to authorize interment
right
anatomical
including
disaster
gifts
of a decedent
body
The
assured privacy
The
right
deceased
room
to inheritance
spouse
determination
in
end of
for visits with a spouse
each other
to support
ability
with a spouse
life
circumstances
rights in
of the estate
an individual
if
in
is
a nursing
to claim an elective
home
share in a
the family residence pending final
and other survivor
survivor benefits for a spouse
home and
if
under the laws of intestacy
s estate
such as being
including
benefits
and children of an individual
killed
for exa mple
while
performing firefighting duties
In the event
that
a couple separates
terminating the relationship
access to an orderly dissolution
and assuring an equitable div
ision
process for
of the couple
assets and debts
49
Oregon law
protections
While
same sex couples are
eligible
to enter into domestic partnerships under
those domestic partnerships are not identical
of marriage
to marriage
and do not
offer
ineligible
full
For example
Couples who have entered into domestic partnerships under Oregon law
the
for virtually
all
otherwise
will
be
to validly
available
married couples
Couples who enter into domestic partnerships
may
not have those relationships
recognize
18
respected
domestic partnerships or statuses
AMENDED COMPLAINT
in
Oregon who
travel
to the extent those states do not
apart from marriage
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
to other states
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
50
recognition
social
of marriage
by invoking
that
Plaintiffs
permanence of
their
their
particular
marry
Civil
are unable instantly
harms to same
that
marriage affords official
By
denying same
in social
their familial relationship
of crisis
families
support
understand
as other families
The
and a
familiar
sex couples
equally deserving of the
sex couples
live
with the ever
legal
way
public
of demonstrating
the State reinforces
that
policy
including
Same
sex
present possibility that others
educational
and medical
settings
and not
entitled
and
in
to the same societal recognition
interest
to justify
family
every other sphere of their lives
a powerful teacher
of discrimina
the State and Defendants instruct
own
children
and
with a badge of inferiority that will invite
all
By
tion to others
persons with
that their relationships
1120
decreeing
of marriage and
whom
same
sex couples
are less worthy than
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
in
sex couples are not worthy of the protections
AMENDED COMPLAINT
and
may
the State has deemed a class of families as less worthy than
on the playground
those couples
the
can avoid by simp le reference to being married
is
who
offering parents and children
sex parents and their children
the children of Plaintiffs
the relationships of same
interact
when
The government
53
enforcing
spouses
that
of marriage
including
19
way
undeserving
same sex couples
that
same
and likewise
other
in
who are
sex couples marriage
different
question
unit
commitment as others do simply
sex parents and their children are less consequential
must
52
that
to others the depth and
are enjoyed by children of different
couples and their children accordingly
moments
children
parent child bonds
legal
and meaningful than those of
enduring
to communicate
sanctuary to the family unit
the family bonds that tie same
that
or adequately
sex couples
and legitimacy
view
fs
substantive and dignitary inequities imposed on committed
means to secure
critical
Without
commitment or to obtain respect for
permanence
stability
marriage conveys
Plaintif
married status
The
51
include
to the tangible harms listed above
In addition
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
others
the imprimatur of the government
Bearing
marriage ban
and Defendants
are unfit for the dignity
encourages
enforcement
respect
of
Many
communicates a view
and stature afforded to
others to follow the government
54
it
the State s statutory and constitutional
example
sex couples
and
this
discriminating against them
private entities defer to the State s conferral
for purposes of an array of important benefits
family
same
sex couples
different
in
that
of marital statu s in defining
often resulting
the exclusion
in
sex couples and their children from important safety nets such as private employer
The
health insurance for family members
committed
other
if
same sex couples and
major arenas of
in
life
The
State
Related
their
ways
that
to same
Exclusion of
to a Legitimate
State and
less likely
No
55
schools
Same
Governmental
Purpose
Not Even
is
Tailored
it
marriages of same
continue
interest
sex couples
same
may marry
in
rights
Oregon
equally to lesbians and gay
20
An
sex couples
exclusion
life
partner
upon
nor
is
individual
that
individual
there even a
not benefit heterosexual couples
and
status
that
Different
sex spouses
will
conferred by marriage regardless of whether same
unimpaired
by the acknowledgment
that this
1120
freedom belongs
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
men
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
to
to exclude same
exists
does not depend
sex couples does
to enjoy the
Related
to a Compelling
on such bases
provides
The Deputy
56
relationship
or sex in relation to his or her committed
legitimate interest in justifying same
protections
Rationally
Let Alone Substantially
Purpose
to establish a loving and e nduring
sexual orientation
and
sex couples
sex couples from the historic and highly venerated institution of marriage
capacity
businesses
to occur and more readily corrected
an Important Government Purpose or Narrowly

Governmental
provided
Defendants also encourage disrespect of
children by others in workplaces
would be
of same
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
57
Because
protections
associated
the State already grants same
with marriage through
the out of state marriages of same
sex couples
many
sex couples
denying same
but not
registration
of the legal
all
and now respects
sex couples the ability
to secure
interest
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Deprivation
US
58
Plaintiffs
as though
complaint
59
Plaintiffs
set
pursuant
to 42
state this
and
injunctive
Fourteenth
Amendment
provides
1983
life
The
in this
liberty interests
Defendants
all
this
capacities
deprive
section
5A ORS
sex couples violate
enforceable
any person of
life
liberty
or
106 010
and
all
other sources
Amendment
62
one
state shall
States Constitution
S Const amend XIV
of state law that preclude marriage for same
Fourteenth
no
61
of the paragraphs of
all
relief
to the United
that
without due process of law
property
Process
The
S
Due
Amend XIV
forth herein
60
of
incorporate
fully
Const
to marry the unique person of one s choice
right
protected
and to
restriction
is
direct
the course of
actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe
including
Plaintiffs
interfering
with a core
life
this right
altering
for
and
The Due
63
autonomy
including
Process Clause also protects
each individual
s rights
choices
central
to family integrity and association
21
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
upon the deeply intimate
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Defendants
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
and private decisions of lesbian and gay Oregonians
personal
them from obtaining
dignity
liberty
full
regarding family
and security for themselves
their
and preclude
life
families
and
their
children
As
64
the State s chief executive officer
enforce the State s marriage ban
of the executive
policies
tax obligations
professions
as well as their
Plaintiffs
As
65
autonomy
Amendment
As
including
family integrity
to the United
66
marriage licenses
that
Plaintiffs
prohibit same
dignity
Amendment
As
67
register
autonomy
vio late the fundamental right to marry of
as well as their
constitutional
rights
Defendant Woodward
marriage licenses
for example
of same
including
family integrity
sex couples
Plaintiffs
association
Bride
violate
and a
the fundamental
as well as their
constitutional
County Defendant Walruff
Plaintiffs
violate
as well as
the fundamental right to marry
rights
protected
duties and
for example
of lesbian
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
forms for
furnishing
States Constitution
sex couples marriage licenses
including
with the State s discriminatory marriage ban by
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
to liberty
and gay Oregonians
States Constitution
sex couples from marrying by requiring a
to the United
denying same
including
family integrity
to the United
records
States Constitution
to marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians
to liberty
vital
autonomy
dignity
Defendant Rosenblum
association
the State Registrar
and refusing to
Fourteenth
22
to liberty
compliance
rights
and regulation
the marriage ban
including
right
rights
with state law
compliance
Groom
right
constitutional
for example
programs
duties and actions to
pursuant to his responsibility for the
association
dignity
benefits
the fundamental
violate
those taken
branch relating to
employee
state
including
Defendant Kitz haber
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
Amendment
to the United
and due process of Paul and Ben
association
68
and
and due process
liberty
Plaintiffs
69
interests
with a fundamental
the burden
is
right
is
Plaintiffs
as though
71
Plaintiffs
set
pursuant
jurisdiction
tailored
state this
and
injunctive
provides
1983
that
23
no
Moreover
all
AMENDED COMPLAINT
States Constitution
S Const amend XIV
section
5A ORS
section
5A
them out of the
their
enforceable
106 010
behalf
in
and
all
other sources
of their
Amendment both
facially
and
the form of a constitutional
deprives lesbian and gay Oregonians
political
The conduct
process and making
it
Perkins Coie
1120
Couch Street
Phone
Fax
OR
of
uniquely
of Defendants in enforcing
Portland
LEGAL29023055
its
sex couples or prevent recognition
by enshrining discrimination
on
capacities
of the laws by locking
to secure legislation
state shall
of the laws
difficult
all
relief
to the United
more
to any legitimate interest at
equal protection
governmental
or even important governmental
that
sustained only upon a showing
Amend XIV
Amendment
marriages violate
may be
of Equal Protection
Const
73
Process Clause s decree
US
Fourteenth
by
forth herein
amendment
Due
or liberty interest
The
to 42
and association
72
marry
fundamental right to
integrity
Deprivation
incorporate
fully
family integrity
the most intimate sphere of their lives
in
not even
VI
complaint
and family
narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
as the marriage ban
70
autonomy
dignity
and Lisa and Chris
autonomy
Defendants cannot satisfy the
interference
interest
in
determination
self
to liberty
Defendants
penalizing
that
States Constitution
these
LLP
Tenth Floor
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
the right of lesbian and gay Oregonians
laws violates
including
discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation
As
74
executive
including
branch relating
state
professions
violate
for example
to
employee
obligations
those taken
benefits
Plaintiffs
As
75
with state law
compliance
As
compliance
Groom
that
As
of Paul and
children
as second
24
their
to the United
own
States Constitution
the constitutional
violate
Defendant Woodward
for example
furnishing
all
of same
marriage licenses
sex couples
including
violate
and a
the
to equal treatment
Plaintiffs
County Defendant Wal
the constitutional
violate
forms for
Bride
ruff
duties and
ban by for example
rights
to equal treatment
and Defendants
and deprives
their families
citizens
through
a message
children
all
of a critical
of government
persons with
that their relationship
is
less
denies
it
sam e
as well as their
imposed stigma and
whom
same
fosters
sex couples interact
worthy than others
1120
sex
gay men and bisexuals
marriage ban brands lesbians
class
actions to enforce
The
State s
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
of
Lisa and Chris
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
rights
private bias and discrimination by instructing
including
tax
to equal treatment
Plaintiffs
State s marriage ban
The
of the
without regard to sexual
with the State s discriminatory marriage
responsibilities
policies
Defendant Rosenblum
The
78
Amendment
Ben and
records
vital
to eq ual treatment
discriminatory marriage ban by
register
denying same
rights
of lesbian and gay Oregonians
rights
77
prohibit same
and refusing to
constitutional
including
the State Registrar
with the State
marriage licenses
and regulation
including the marriage ban
76
constitutional
or sex under the Fourteenth
orientation
programs
by
and sex
Defendant Kitzhaber
enforce Measure 36
to equal protection
Plaintiffs
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
gay men
couples in
Same
all
sex couples such as the Plaintiff
Same
80
sex couples
Like different
faced
to different
make
same sex couples
sex couples
Plaintiffs
82
Like
fall
in
love
Like different
plan
same sex
sex couples
seek to marry for the same emotional
legal shelter
some
Plaintiffs
responsibilities
different
romantic
to their families as different
sex couples
and
their
some same
and d
ignitary
reasons
sex spouses
children are equally worthy of the tangible rights and
dignity
and legitimacy
that
access to marriage confers on
For the many children being raised by same
different
couples
the tangible resources and societal esteem that access to marriage confers
precious
than for children
of different
sex
is
no
less
sex couples
The
84
marriage and discriminates
facially
against each Plaintiff
based on his or her sexual orientation
from
both
and as applied
The
85
subjects Defendants
cannot withstand
25
sex
together
83
sex
81
children
toward lesbians
relevant to marriage
when
antipathy
couples are identical
futures together
their
and
and bisexuals
79
couples
exclusion
of Plaintiffs
conduct to
strict
their
or at least heightened scrutiny
AMENDED COMPLAINT
from marriage based on
sexual orient
which Defendants
conduct
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
ation
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
interests
let
alone any important or compelling
an adequately
86
gay men
Sexual orientation
a person
that
as a condition
89
or safe
professional
virtually
is
may
a core
defining
trait
that
to abandon
even
it
if
s identity
that
were
of equal treatment
No
generally
credible evidence
is
supports
the notion
organization
that
attempt
that
No
they often are harmful and damaging
indeed
such interventions
are either
mainstream mental health
to change
of them hav e adopted policy statements cautioning
all
so fundamental to one
is
not legitimately b e required
Sexual orientation
intervention
effective
to perform in or
s ability
to society
and conscience
through
States
Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual
88
possible
it
contribute
nor d oes
manner
tailored
Lesbians
87
interests
and
sexual orientation
and the public
professionals
90
prejudice
that
Lesbians
gay men
might
ordinarily
protections
at
be
Lesbians
half
democratic
gay men
Gay
the states
bodies
are systematically
right
AMENDED COMPLAINT
women
in
at
had when race
and
against
the federal level a
30
state
and
nd
in
local
state constitutional
a total of 35 states
and have been
process more than any other group
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
rights
respectively
federal
to marry through
the voter initiative
processes
people have fewer civil
and housing
in
and ongoing
minority
of those political
and quasi suspect
underrepresented
have been stripped of the
targeted across the nation through
insular
amendments and are currently not permitted to marry
26
operation
upon to protect minorities
were declared to be suspect
discrimination in employment
more than
seriously to curtail the
sex based classifications
91
relied
and bisexuals are a discrete and
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
92
and as applied
solely
because
93
devoted
Chris
barring Plaintiffs
each of the
Because
Similarly
woman
The
94
perpetuating
recognized
men
Paul
of sex
from marriage or from being recognized as
validly
wishes to marry a
is
is
precluded
woman
women
that
no
The
96
preclud
ed from marrying her
and not a man were Lisa a man she could marry
State s marriage ban also serves
Given
is
is
married
is
man and
not a
woman
he would be able to marry Ben under Oregon law
should marry
there
Lisa
both facially
of the same sex
partner
and wives
life
of these sex based classifications
95
against Plaintiffs
on the
basis
Plaintiffs
partner because she
life
were Paul a
that
marriage ban discriminates
and
same sex couples from marriage
those couples
women
for the sex based
exclusion
of Plaintiffs
fail
should marry
there are no longer
basis
the impermissible purpose of enforcing
to conform
to sex based stereotypes
between the duties of husbands
requirements
of gender based stereotypes cannot survive
or from being
men
legal distinctions
eligibility
and
for marriage
sex and the enforcement
their
the heightened scrutiny
required
for sex
based
discrimination
Discrimination With Respect to Fundamental
by
the
97
Due
Process Clause
The
sexual orientation
their
27
in
dignity
autonomy
with respect to Plaintiffs
sexual orientation and sex
scrutiny
and sex with respect to the exercise of the fundamental
treatment
against
Rights and Liberty Interests Secured
which Defendants
and family
integrity
subjects Defendants
right
and association
rights
conduct to
and
Differential
liberty interests
strict
based on
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
to marry and
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
based on
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
28
US C
98
2201 and 2202
99
fully
the issuance
irreparable
law or
in
to Plaintiffs
subjecting
identified
of marriage through
Oregon
present and ongoing
warranting
Defendants would redress and prevent the
enjoining
for which
herein
Oregon currently allows same
The
same sex couples
in
Defendants
have no adequate
Plaintiffs
remedy
equity
101
protections
because
judgment
favorable decision
injuries
subjects them to serious and immediate harms
to Plaintiffs
of a declaratory
100
all
Rules 57 and 65
forth herein
at
set
incorporate
Plaintiffs
as though
complaint
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
DECLARATORY
VII
State will incur
whereas the hardship for
and respects out
but not
their constitutional
rights
of the
sex couples to marry
of being denied equal treatment
ffs
all
of state marriages of
to no burden in allowing same
little
Plainti
some
sex couples to access
The
severe
is
balance
of hardships
VIII
WHEREFORE
A
Plaintiffs
Declaring
rights
Amendment
Article 15
request that
section
5A
his
States Constitution
by the State and
its
and
further
subdivisions
Court enter judgment
Declaring
such as
ORS
that
ORS
106 041 1
deny same sex couples
28
respectfully
including
issuing a permanent injunction
Defendants
of Article 15
that
section
B
wife
that
to the United
bars enforcement
5A
Plaintiffs
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
full
and
106 010
ORS
and
106 150 1
and equal recognition
AMENDED COMPLAINT
all
Oregon
statutes referring
rights
privileges
to
responsibilities
1120
and
only insofar as they
obligations
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
husband
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
and immunities of married couples
and
its
subdivisions
recognition
rights
including
privileges
Requiring
marriage licenses
register
applicable to different
and
further
Defendants
must grant to same sex couples
obligations
responsibilities
the State and
for same
its
issuing a permanent injunct
subdivisions
sex couples
ion that the State
full
and equal
including
Defendants
to issue and
pursuant to the same restrictions
and
limitations
sex couples
Recognizing
sex couples validly married in another
jurisdiction
E
to
inter
Awarding
alia 42
29
US C
Granting
Plaintiffs
their
costs
expenses
and reasonable attorneys
1988 and other applicable laws
such other and further
AMENDED COMPLAINT
relief
and
as the Court deems just and proper
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
fees pursuant
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
each Defendant
declaratory
DATED
injunctive
persons acting in active concert
supervision
and
direction
January
relief
s officers
or participation
employees
and agents
with any Defendant
is
sought against
and against
all
or under any Defendant
or control
2014
Thomas
Kristina J
OSB No
Johnson
TRJohnson
010645
com
perkinscoie
Holm OSB No
112607

MIsaak
perkinscoie com
Perkins Coie LLP
Telephone
503 727 2000
OSB No
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
Johnson Johnson
Telephone
KDiaz
PC
OSB No
Kevin Daz
ACLU
Schaller
541 683 2506
Cooperating
ACLU
Foundation
aclu
Telephone
071510
com
Inc
970480
of Oregon
Inc
or org
503 227 6928
RSaxe
aclu org
Telephone
212 549 2627
Amanda Goad
AGoad
Telephone
American
pro hac vice
aclu org
213 977 5244

Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
30
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
Thomas
OSB No
Johnson
TRJohnson
Holm OSB No
Kristina J
KDiaz
aclu
PERKINS COIE
Facsimile
OR
Portland
Telephone
OR
Telephone
97209 4128
RSaxe
Middleton
jjlslaw
Amanda Goad
OSB No
975 Oak Street

Eugene
OR
Telephone
Facsimile
pro hac
vice
aclu org
AMERICAN
071510
SCHALLER
PC
125 Broad Street
New
Suite 1050
97401
York
Telephone
541 683 2506
Facsimile
NY
18th Floor
10004
212 549 2627

212 549 2650
541 484 0882

Cooperating
ACLU
UNION
CIVIL LIBERTIES
FOUNDATION
com
JOHNSON JOHNSON
pro hac vice
aclu org
AGoad
Jennifer
503 227 6948
Rose Saxe
503 727 2000
JMiddleton
97240
503 227 6928
Tenth Floor
Street
503 727 2222
Facsimile
INC
Box 40585
Portland
LLP
Couch
970480
or org
112607
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
MIsaak
perkinscoie com
1120
OSB No
Kevin Daz
010645
com
perkinscoie
to be submitted
Inc

DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
6 13 cv 02256
PAUL
LISA
RUMMELL
and
CHICKADONZ
BENJAMIN WEST
CHRISTINE TANNER
and
No
TC
AMENDED
Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT
AND
FOR DECLARATORY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Pursuant to 42
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
US C
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
629023055 1
1983
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
ROSENBLUM
in
General of Oregon
her official
Health
in his official
as Governor
her official
capacity as Attorney
JENNIFER
WOODWARD
capacity as State Registrar
Statistics
in his offic
ial
in
Center for
RANDY WALDRUFF
Multnomah
ELLEN
of Oregon
and
capacity
as
County Assessor
Defendants
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs
not
committed
42
Paul Rummell and
US C
1983
that
same
jamin West
sex couples
works to advance the
through
education
seeking declaratory
Ben
Amendment
and
Plaintiff
rights
and advocacy
injunctive
to the United
and Lisa Chickadonz
relief
Plaintiffs
AMENDED COMPLAINT
gay bisexual
629023055 1
rights
States Constitution caused by the exclusion
state
1120
of
of Oregon
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
is
and
Education Fund
Basic Rights
of lesbian
and Christine
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
hallmark
and
of a couple
status
of immense import
by the
state
Oregon
existing
statutes
and
sexual orientation
On
opinion
that
other states
Court
and provide
same
their
sex couples through
marriage
same sex couples
local
Mr
only
Yet
status
in
2004 to
solely
single
on
out
their
the Deputy
Attorney General for the state of Oregon issued a
sex couples
who
married
States
The
Windsor
all
next day
the Chief Operating
Michael Jordan
directed
marriages performed outside of Oregon
all
Officer for the
state
including
agencies
marriages of
the State continues to refuse to allow same sex couples to marry
Jordan s directive
governments
The
exclusion
from marriage
For example
for the same reasons as different
before their family
security
that
offer
sex
Nevertheless
Further
which
Since
refusing to do so would likely be unconstitutional after the Supreme
decision in United
Oregon
none of the dignity of
bonds equally worthy
sex couples in Oregon are barred from marrying as a result of
Oregon Department of Administrative Services
and
enduring
by excluding them from the freedom to marry based
October 16 2013
because
and celebrated
confers upon couples a dignity
It
and because the Oregon Constitution was amended
in
together
of marriage
and other committed
Plaintiffs
in
Plaintiffs
life
recognized
Oregon has allowed same sex couples to enter into domestic partnerships
some
legal
society as the universally
commitment to build family
of the respect afforded
2008
in
friends
and protections
inflicts
Plaintiffs
sex couples
Paul and
Ben
are unmarried
their child
1120
LB
the
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
629023055 1
and wish to marry
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382
sex
to publicly declare their love and commitment
that
harms upon same
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
organization
Education Fund
Basic Rights
Plaintiff
Our
These
and
taught
To
women
legal
is
active in ongoing
such as
of marriage does
us that the vitality
the contrary
it
and the
independence
17
states
to
make
not depend
and the
marriage continues
District
of Columbia same
Plaintiffs
statutes violates
the United
of same
State s exclusion
of the law
one by one
History has
on maintaining such discriminatory laws
has enhanced
is
no
the institution
Indeed as of today
different
sex couples are marrying and the institution of
their rights
enforcement
of
and
it
injunctive
Accordingly
Plaintiffs
inflicted
on
bring this
on the grounds
relief
to
that
the
the Oregon Constitution and Oregon
Amendment
to
States Constitution
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
Portland
Paul Rummell
Oregon
the theatre arts
marriage laws that violated
restrictions
II
to repeal that provision
seek equal access to marriage as the only means to secure
them by the marriage ban and Defendants
pursuant to 42
on marriage
to restrictions
to thrive
suit
gay
miscegenation laws and laws that denied
anti
right
efforts
Ending the exclusion of lesbian and gay couples from marriage
in
rights
include opposition
married
efforts
a statewide civil
opposed amending the Oregon Constitution to exclude
Basic Rights
is
has a long history of public education and advocacy
that
bisexual
Basic Rights
Paul
age 43
and for the
last
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Paul
is
and Benjamin West
Ben
States Air Force
in
1120
629023055 1
in
Ben
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
the past worked
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
age 35 worked
expects to complete
Oregon and had
some
after
because
it
was
10
married
rate
Day
Fortunately
are concerned
in
Pride in 2006
fact
first
that
date
However
their
then
Ben had
the following
ended with a
evening
his
single kiss
three
after
finances
Even though they
a house
live
they needed
as one
to include
Ben
they were not
but not at the more favora ble veteran s interest
to their medical coverage
if
but Paul and
Paul has to change
Ben
jobs
the future
In 2010
like
Paul and
Ben knew
ceremony to declare
on August 21 2010
Mayor Sam Adams
their
love and commitment
to officiate
Ben
he very much wants to have a
to
declined
civil
AMENDED COMPLAINT
make
to one another
to each other
Paul and
The ceremony took
Ben asked
629023055 1
Portland
the proceedings feel more legitimate
Paul
was
Even
Although
raised to believe in the sanctity of marriage and
marriage because of what
it
represents
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
Ben
as
They started up a
Paul s parents attended
As soon
place
Paul does not usually attend Pride but
interest
11
wedding
was
Paul
Ben have combined
qualify
raised in
together
live
Paul and
Ben were born and
Paul and
Their
sometime
Gay
a Pride block party
Father s
months they decided to
income to
because
walking
household
friends
during
conversation
currently in a program he
upbringings
Ben met
Paul and
walked into a pub
after
religious
decided to go with
father
in
is
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
12
Paul and
had been
home
dealt
and background
studies
course of about a year and
respite
hand
checks
very low
LB
Ben
with Paul and
Ben worked
Paul and
necessary
14
Paul and
Ben want
especially
their relationship
Ben
to
each other and
15
that
new
work
LB
sure that
that
their
grows up
family
about
L B
is
was
issues
placed
term placement for him
and
in
the process
L B
in
a safe and stable
LB
peers
about whether
home
less
may
by
his
not understand their
married in Oregon
legally
but so that they will have
and
officials
the love
the important legal protections
for
family
Oregon
of nursing
included
make
they are concerned
Lisa Chickadonz
professor
to
their relationship
their
L B
LB
from society
they travel
and commitment of
In the
term placements of three children and provided
They are concerned
When
home
in their
to be finalized
without the repeated message
relationship
who
of the training
all
to begin caring for children
extensively
last
Ben completed
a six year old boy with serious behavioral
made
history
parents to focus on helping children
Paul and
life
candid about their desire to be fathers
children
L B
In June of 2012
foster
they had long
a half
13
in
Ben were
Lisa
Lisa
Chris age 66
in clinical
age 56
is
resear ch
is
Chris
is
an
assistant
teaching
and administrative
capacities
Both Lisa and
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
629023055 1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
16
Lisa and Chris met in 1982 and began dating in 1985
a private commitment ceremony
and
a family together
raise
and Jacob was born
in
and related expenses
legal
and exchanged
Lisa
1994
is
The
The
Shortly thereafter
two
parent adoptions
they had
they decided to create
children
Katie
was born
in
home
1991
studies
for each child so that Chris would be a
come
the same legal rights and responsibilities
creating
ings
to perform second
parent to both children
In September 1986
of married couple
as close as possible to
with respect to the
two
children
17
They
In addition
jointly
own
all
and
in
responsibilities
Oregon
respective
wills
18
between each other
dollars
and health care
When
March 3 2004
were subjected to derogatory
married the afternoon
19
community
Undaunted
of
all
night to be
certificate
The
in line
f irst
and with marriage
in
629023055 1
Chris
following morning
While waiting
in line
the
from opponents of marriage
hand
Lisa and Chris were
how
meaningful
it
was
to them
1120
and to
their
was acknowledged
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
They had wanted
building the night before
March 3 2004 by
AMENDED COMPLAINT
to the county
all
that
they could
down
stayed out
if
Doing
directives
with a broken leg and a lawn chair
their
the same
they otherwise
to be legally married for years and headed
children
that
they have tried to approximate
licenses to same sex couples on
Lisa brought
Again
with the help of attorneys
marry
medical emergencies
legal rights
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
and celebrated by
respected
Upon
involvement
celebration
And
home from
their arrival
Family members
central
part of their life
no question of the
level
now
understood
what
When
represented
it
neighbors
their
difference
in
how
joined in the
their
extended
their relationship
introducing
of commitment that relationship
each other as a spouse there was
entailed
the state of Oregon
Importantly
love and commitment by granting the same rights and responsibili
their
couple as any other married couple
Chris memorialized the recognition
in their
whom
20
also recognized
with them
family interacted
what a
their
ties
to the
After almost 20 years of not being able to marry Lisa and
by hanging
framed marriage
their
license
home
21
after their
marriage
was
invalidated
by the Oregon
of Oregon
their
marriage didn
the State they called
say they were not
home
now
if
awful
felt
was no
that
by
longer recognized
they were married they would have to
serves as a painful reminder of the fact that they are
down
was
not the same
They knew what
it
was
Lisa and
to be married and
friends
rest
and family
in their
AMENDED COMPLAINT
church
for almost 30 years
get
They want to get
and by
their
They have raised a family
legally
married in Oregon
minister
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
under the laws
amongst
that registering
married again
23
it
They
recognized
exist
not married so they took
22
If
sex couples
629023055 1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
24
Plaintiff
Education Fund
Basic Rights
organization
organization
inclusive
recognition
movement
in
Oregon
of marriage
In 2004
marriage statute
The County
same sex couples
When
filed
and
year
Basic Rights
marriages
that
BRO
rights
that
will
it
gay bisexual
ensure that
and
although
constituents
The
in
all
legal
Basic Rights
BRO
was amended
counsel both concluded
refused to register the licenses
Civil
Liberties
Article I
section 20
to
affiliate
Union and nine
that
exclusion
of
Later
state
that
challenged the va lidity
was
not a
named
recognition
Basic Rights
of
was an
of Measure 36 under the Oregon
party in the suit
Basic Rights continues
to
Measure 36
exclusion
and Basic Rights
of same
itself
both Basic Rights
For instance
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
629023055 1
that
licenses
Basic Rights
helped to organize the campaign in opposition to Measure 36
Basic Rights
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382
to prohibit
violates
victories
advocating
26
and achieving policy
public opinion
a declaratory
Constitution
its
unconstitutional
organizing
provides
work
for profit
the State Registrar
Basic Rights Oregon
same sex couples
was
marriage statute
shifting
that
a not
a statewide civil
is
mission statement
Basic Rights
same sex couples
entity
about and advocacy
Basic Rights
powerful
politically
25
Oregon
Basic Rights
is
gay bisexual and transgender Oregonians experience equality by building a broad and
lesbian
state
Basic Rights
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
exclusion
men
lesbians
of same
and bisexuals are
to diminished
entitled
poverty
who
further isolating
systemic racism
less
respect and inferior rights
impacts people of color
an impression
This exclusion
that
gay
community
disproportionately
are more likely to be raising children and living in
communities already experiencing the impacts of
homophobia
and transphobia
This creates
additional
work
for
Basic Rights inasmuch as Basic Rights must organize in the community to promote
the equal dignity of gay
conveyed
inequality
As
by the
lesbians
and
inferior
for an alternative
about and promoting
The Oregon
of same
public
rights
sex couples
including
same
addition
sex couples
106 300
confusion
required
about
a significant
the status and
must expend resources educating the
For instance
Basic Rights
created a Domestic
people about the unfamiliar institution
to re write forms and state websites
Basic
assists
same sex couples who have been subject to unequal treatment

These
efforts
in violation
require the expenditure
of
of
resources by Basic Rights
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
629023055 1
In
with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries
also regularly fields inquiries about Oregon domestic partnerships and
significant
of
Raising
Rights
LEGAL28727382
rights
about what domestic partnerships are and what
Resource Guide to educate
to convene
significant
Basic Rights
Partnership
ORS
the passage of this legislation
Basic Rights had to
mechanism to ensure
expenditure
rights
of
and advocate
awareness
the message
resist
of same sex couples from marriage
same sex couples
10
and bisexuals
innovate
men
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
of same
exclusion
many
relationships
Due
marriages
of
whom
uncertainty
Rights
The
documents
identification
confront
who
seeking relationship
right
of same
importance
and
sex couples to marry in Oregon
to lesbian
gay
bisexual
is
recognition
vulnerable
their relationship
Basic
rights
of such fundamental
that
it
requires
the majority of the organizational capacity and resources available to Basic Rights
in
other
critical
and advocacy
work
For instance
Safe Schools Act of 2009 to create
priority
transgender youth
and committing suicide
in
being bullied
Oregon
this
especially
more than one
passage
not in compliance
still
with the law
Basic Rights could
If
same
third
to advance
for
all
to engage
the Oregon
students in Oregon
of incidents of gay and
in light
Nonetheless
nearly five
of Oregon school districts
are
sex couples had the freedom to marry
devote significantly
more resources to addressing
and other important issues
Defendants
27
Oregon
He
State s laws
Governor
is
vested
including
Kitzhaber
is
sued
in his official
the marriage ban
and
his
are faithfully
executed
Or Const
of the policies of the executive branch
AMENDED COMPLAINT
art
including
1120
629023055 1
that
the
1 10
administrative
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
of the state of
11
a safe environment
years after the law
Basic Rights worked
s ability
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
agency
policies
programs
benefits
status
relating
ORS
and regulation
180 060 10
responsibility
Governor
for recognizing
Kitzhaber
including
same sex couples to marry or to have
Kitzhaber
how
for
Governor
and was acting under color of
state
As the
ull
at
may remove
US
under the
obligations
created by the
US
is
sued
her official
in
with
those
to the ability
of
commissions
with the obligations
of
1983
capacity a s the Attorney General
of
ORS
180 220 1
180 220
commissions
180 210
She
commissions and
and bureaus of
their
She also has the power to enforce
Ms
180 060
departments
all
her ability
180 240
her duties include
ORS
ORS
marital
all
the leg al business
Constitution
of the State s citizens
US C
all
a failure to comply
including
tate
obligations
meaning of 42
including
and control of
charge
recognizing
chief legal officer
of the State s laws
bureaus of the
interests
law
is
employee
state
the heads of various agencies
sex couples and
including
Kitzhaber
for the state of Oregon
also has
of which involve
also has authority to remove from office members of boards
the federal Constitution
enforcement
tax obligations
marriages from other jurisdictions recognized
their valid
28
records
all
appoints
appointees for various reasons
Governor
vital
to initiate
suit
Rosenblum
state
law
at
the
a person within the
is
all
to protect
times relevant to
this
complaint
29
Center of Health
Statistics
include
and
directing
directing
supervising
system of
vital
12
sued
ORS
432 030
AMENDED COMPLAINT
activities
She
is
of
capacity as the State Registrar
Ms Woodward
State Registrar
and controlling the
her official
in
supervising
records
is
Statistics
all
and
its
system of
persons pertaining
629023055 1
duties
records
to the operation
of the
responsible for furnish ing forms for the marriage
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
vital
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
license
and application
marriage certificate
432 405 2
Woodward
including
Defendant Randy Wal
County
Mr
druff
Waldruff
of these functions with relevant state laws
Ms Woodward
is
sued
state
law
is
at
all
times
in his official
solemnizing
marriages
maintaining
Defendants
through
enforcing
supervision
and control
Mr
their
Wal
state
druff
law
irreparably
including
if
performed
not enjoined
as well as
all
all
pa
rticipated
III
Plaintiffs
Accordingly
employees
in
color of state law of rights secured
AMENDED COMPLAINT
the relief
by the United
are responsible for
their
and
will
direction
629023055 1
some
continue
requested herein
is
to
sought
or control
AND VENUE
C
under
States Constitution
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
direction
and agents
JURISDICTION
those laws that
32
to
respective duties and obligations
Each Defendant
intentionally
at
is
including
injure Plaintiffs
records relating

31
levying and
Waldruff must comply with state law in performing his duties
exclude same
13
is
Ms
432 405 1
collecting
ORS
and she
to this complaint
for Multnomah
all
30
Mr
the State must be filed with the State Registrar
records that have been filed
marriage
relevant
in
ORS
for marriage license used in the State
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
33
28
This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
US C
laws of the United
34
Venue
is
official
claims took
35
place
offices
in
and because a
arise
1391 b
and 28
substantial
and
and
all
part of the events
Procedure
under the Constitution and
because
Defend
that
gave
ants
rise
to the
Civil
controversy
States
Plaintiffs
in
relief
pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of
2201 and 2202
36
in
the State
STATEMENT OF FACTS
IV
couples
Plaintiff
37
challenges
Plaintiff
of family
members who
families
freely
and nurture
respect afforded
life
who
co
may marry
their
Plaintiffs
children
exclusion
subjects Plaintiffs
State s exclusion
and Ben
14
But for the
families
of Plaintiffs
to an inferior
to other Oregon
are productive
workers
and other community
contributing
who
citizens
by the State to other
The
38
Marry
marriage
afforded
to
Eligibility
their
through
from marriage
second
class
and Defendants
status relative
children of equal dignity
fact that
AMENDED COMPLAINT
and
celebrated status of
enforcement
of that
to the rest of the poli tical
security
and
legal
protections
couples
to marry under the laws of the Oregon
1120
Paul
and
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
629023055 1
dignity
their
families
and Lisa and Chris
LEGAL28727382
support
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
wish to marry
in this
Each
State
is
over the age of 17 fully
marriage as a result of having another spouse
to provide
and
from
not precluded
is
They are
willing
the requisite information to receive a marriage license and to pay the required fee
competent
of marriage
responsibilities

39
In 2004
subdivisions
recognized
that
40
leveraging
submitted
Or Const
art
15
is
man and one woman
as marriage
It
voters approved
shall
be
Measure 36 an
and
its
political
or legall
valid
5a
men and
in
its
For instance
lesbians
passage by
proponents
Pamphlet regarding
the statewide Voters
Measure 36
If
we
forced
to place
Schools
the
foster
and society
will
of same
equality
the state will be
marriage
children in same
sex households

sex marriage
the importance
experimentation
It
will
and increase
neither emotionally
is
To
radically
and fundamentally
marriage to include
to reject
purpose
children
and a nation
standing
to unnatural
and
God
what
irreversible
Vote
Meant
YES
on
to
Be
it
more than
just
God
in
change the
considers an
marriage for
Providing
relationships
definition
of
abomination
is
men women
equivalent legal
will
force devastating
Measure
36
Because
It
the
Way Nature
woman is
about a loving
relationship
it
also about the
laws of nature
MYTH
Homosexuals

protections
15
AMENDED COMPLAINT
suffer
of marriage
REALITY
Many
of the
granted by marriage are already available to
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
629023055 1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
same sex couples through
arrangements
Same
sex marriage
on children
It
intentionally
If
it
is
join in
or
polyamory
anyone
violate
considered
their
s civil
sic
For example
rights
sister
two
mother or
brother
And
it
no
father
not

spouses
had proven same sex
of any
should not also be able to
Also
of
marriage as between one female a nd one male
Defining
one can marry
41
individuals
group marriage
does not
having
two
able to marry simply because they want
sic
difficult
polygamy
sex
a vast
is
the same sex be

to
is
that
relationships
The Oregon
42
m arriage
that
is
a civil
contract
Numerous
106 010
106 150 1
and wife
Similarly
under
ORS
106 041 1
43
the Oregon
legislature
legislative
that
is
between these two
legally
recognized
AMENDED COMPLAINT
to join together
legal
protections
states
ORS
and obligations
629023055 1
as
not a marriage
ORS
recognize
numerous
relationships
that
The
The
106 300
Family Fai
106 305 7
Legislative
which
of marriage by
In fact
distinctions
rness Act
the
will exist
Assembly recognizes
1120
that
the
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
issued
the license
provides
creating
In 2008
in
ORS
For instance
the authorization
conducting
husband
and wife
entered
ORS
16
sex
This and similar claims were and a re untrue
parents
clearly
studies
scientific
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
the borders of this state and cannot impact restrictions
On
44
June 26 2013
in
United

federal government
On
45
Chief Operating
that
October 17 2013
likely
valid
who marry
the Deputy
the opinion
letter
the Deputy
compelling
state interest
of each sex
no
recognizing
the marriages
recognition
in
benefit
noted that
letter
Oregon
marriages
in
letter
muster even
Barring same
at
of
That
letter
to the
letter states
respect the marriages
we
that
Measure 36
but concluded
sex couples
continues
and again
ame
we
in
and no
much
injury
would
from
sex relationships are given legal
To
defend a refusal to
a state interest in allowing partnerships
cannot point to any such interest that would
Inflicts
sex couples from marriage disqualifies
different
less
result
Same
and to safeguard
the
Oregon contain one partner
rational basis
that
that
may

on Plaintiffs
47
the State
but refusing to recognize marriages
pass constitutional
the
sex couples
The
2013
in
2675
other states
in
Specifically
beyond
Id
barred recognition
133 S Ct
marriages of same
generally respects out of state marriages
In the opinion
acknowledge
Windsor
not be effective
of Marriage Act
sex couples
46
States
Defense
from respecting the
because Oregon
of same
may
recognition
legal
them from
review
Profound
Harm
critically
their families
By way
of example only
same
sex
couples are denied
17
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
629023055 1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
ability
The
ceremonies
through
deprives same
of important legal protections
that
come
automatically
sanctioned marriage
state
with state
sex couples
sanctioned
marriage
The
to safeguard family resources under an array of laws that protect
ability
finances
for example
including
the exemption
value of health insurance coverage
and
employment
recognition
for virtually
all
Social Security
Many
benefits
governments
contingent
on
this directive
Thus
of marriage
United
entire
Unmarried couples
The
same
ability
priority
to
to
Mr
sex couples
make
make
Code
are denied
criminal sanctions
including
laws pertaining
to
and veterans
copyright
resources
causing
state
agencies
of
to recognize
marriages
all
Jordan s directive
may be
whether government
is
or private
By
denied
caretaking decisions in times of death
and
disaster
spouse
1120
including
the ability
to
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
629023055 1
States
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382
to marriage
has directed
married same
not bound by
entities
of example only
18
taxes
Michael Jordan
outside Oregon
responsibilities
way
span the
local
relating
financial
and
housing
that
purposes throughout
performed
the other
through
or deferral of federal taxes on the property of
and the whole realm of federal regulations
48
from federal taxable income of the
elderly or disabled residents
certain
the exemption
that
spousal
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
and the automatic
The
right
deceased
each other
room
to inheritance
spouse
of the estate
for a spouse
priority
in
to
the automatic
make
end of
The
and
right
to support
ability
assured privacy
for an autopsy
a circuit court
petition
with a spouse
anatomical
rights in
and other survivor
gifts
circumstances
life
of a decedent
home and
an individual
if
in
is
body
such as being
if
s estate
right
a nursing
home
share in a
the family residence pending final determination
benefits
including
killed
for example
survivor benefits
ming
while perfor
firefighting
duties
In the event
that
a couple separates
process for
and assuring an equitable division of the couple
assets and debts
49
Oregon law
protections
While
eligible
to marriage
and do not
offer
full
For example
of marriage
ineligible
the
for virtually
all
otherwise
will
be
to validly
available
married couples
may
recognize
50
social
recognition
of marriage
19
In addition
that
Plaintiffs
respected
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Without
Oregon who
travel
apart from marriage
Plaintiffs
or adequately
to communicate
1120
to others the
629023055 1
depth and
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
to other states
marriage conveys
in
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
permanence of
invoking
their
and legitimacy
means to secure
legal
to third parties
By
meaningful
accordingly
denying same
familial
relationship
in
way
other
families
support
public
way
legal
nd children
Same
and medical
when
the view that the
enduring
The
sex couples and their
may
and
settings
on the playground
policy
is
and
in
in
of crisis
own
Bearing
enforcement
of
AMENDED COMPLAINT
it
enduring
family
children
By
of discrimination to others
all
persons with
cates a view that same
decreeing
of marriage and
whom
same
sex couples
are less worthy than others
communi
and
those couples
marriage ban
sex couples are unfit for the
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
629023055 1
moments
including
LEGAL28727382
question their
a powerful teacher
interact
and Defendants
entitled
that
and not
State has no adequate interest to justify
The government
53
and
of marriage
including
critical
those bonds
of demonstrating
educational
who marry
undeserving
same sex couples
20
sex couples
offering parents a
with the ever
live
sex couples
are equally deserving of the stability
understand
as other families
enforcing
familiar
same
Children from a young age understand that marriage signifies an
and likewise
unit
and a
in social
spouses
that
52
must
who
than those of different
children
children
parent child bonds
family bonds that tie same
that
that
Civil
commitment as others do simply by
particular harms to same sex couples
permanence
that
married status
The
51
include
their
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
dignity
respect
the government
example
Many
54
their
life
in
The
State
Related
ways
often resulting
No
55
that
would be
less likely
Same
56
it
Purpose
historic
and highly venerated
continue
couples
The Deputy
Oregon
protections
21
sex couples
Because
associated
is
Not Even
interest
life
partner
nor
An
that
is
Related
to
individual
individual
there even a
that
Different
sex spouses
will
by marriage regardless of whether same sex
freedom belongs
that this
men
sex couples
many
but not
registration
1120
all
of the legal
and now respects
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
629023055 1
Rationally
to exclude
exists
of marriage
unimpaired
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382
if
to a Compelling
does not depend upon
exclusion
57
Tailored
sex couples does
in
and
on such bases
provides
may marry
businesses
institution
marriages of same
provided
and more readily corrected
to occur
protections
schools
Governmental
to establish a loving and enduring relationship
sexual orientation
of
Purpose
capacity
the exclusion
in
State and Defendants also encourage disrespect of

Governmental
of marital status in defining
sex couples
Exclusion of
to a Legitimate
The
their
marriage were available to same
others to follow
children from important safety nets such as private employer
major arenas of
encourages
this
in
committed
and
sex couples
family
other
different
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
denying same
sex couples
marriage license within the s tate of Oregon advances
to secure
interest
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Deprivation
US
58
Plaintiffs
as though
complaint
59
Plaintiffs
set
pursuant
to 42
state this
and
law
that
Fourteenth
life
Amendment
provides
1983
no
capacities for
relief
to the United
that
state shall
States Constitution
deprive
S Const amend XIV

section
5A ORS
sex couples violate
enforceable
any person of
life
liberty
or
106 010
and
all
other
sources of
Amendment
The
62
one
Fourteenth
ve
61
state
injuncti
property
all
The
S
Process
forth herein
purposes of seeking declaratory
60
Due
Amend XIV
b y reference and reallege
incorporate
fully
of
Const
in this
liberty interests
right
protected
and to
restriction
is
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
direct
the course of
Amendment
actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe this right for
gay Oregonians
including
Plaintiffs
interfering
with a core
life
altering
Defendants
all
lesbian and
and intimate personal
choice
63
autonomy
The Due
including
each individual
s rights
choices
central
personal
22
AMENDED COMPLAINT
regarding family
1120
629023055 1
life
and preclude
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
Defendants
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
them from obtaining
dignity
liberty
full
their
families
and
their
children
As
64
the State s chief executive
of the executive
policies
tax obligations
professions
state
violate
employee
As
65
compliance
the fundamental
autonomy
As
including
family integrity
to the United
66
marriage licenses
dignity
Amendment
As
67
register
States Constitution
the fundamental right to marry of
and due process
of same
including
family integrity
to the United
constitutional
rights
for example
furnishing
sex couples
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
and a
the fundamental
as well as their constitutional
States Constitution
County Defendant
Waldruff
violate
as well as
duties and
for example
the fundamental right to marry of lesbian and
rights
protected
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
629023055 1
forms for
Bride
violate
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL28727382
to liberty
association
including
including
family integrity
gay Oregonians
as well as their
marriage licenses
autonomy
denying same
autonomy
to the United
violate
Defendant Woodward
to liberty
records
States Constitution
prohibit same
and refusing to
Fourteenth
23
Plaintiffs
vital
dignity
Defendant Rosenblum
association
the State Registrar
that
age
compliance
rights
and regulation
the marriage ban
including
health insurance cover
rights to liberty
with state law
Amendment
right
for example
programs
right
constitutional
Groom
benefits
association
dignity
those taken
branch relating to
as well as their
Plaintiffs
including
Defendant Kitzhaber
officer
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
to the United
States Constitution
due process of Paul and Ben

68
and
and due process
penalizing
Plaintiffs
69
interests
right
is
not even
tailored
70
as though
71
fully
Plaintiffs
set
to 42
that
difficult
24
Const
and
injunctive
provides
that
of the
aws
1983
to the United
no
state shall
all
as
section
on
section
5A
behalf
capacities for
in
enforceable
5A ORS
106 010
Amendment
and
both facially
process and making
it
and as applied to
amendment
of equal
uniquely
1120
sources of
of their marriages
The conduct
other
all
political
its
them out of the
their
States Constitution
S Const amend XIV
AMENDED COMPLAINT
more
these laws
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
629023055 1
interest
relief
LEGAL28727382
that
all
legislation
governmental
that
Amendment
to secure
by
forth herein
protection
may be
Fourteenth
Moreover
and association
or liberty interest
The
S
and
intimate sphere of their lives
Amend XIV
state this
Plaintiffs
Due
73
violate
most
of Equal Protection
jurisdiction
law
the
US
purposes of seeking declaratory
72
association
fundamental right to marry
integrity
Deprivation
incorporate
Plaintiffs
family integrity
VI
state
in
and family
is
the marriage ban
pursuant
autonomy
in
determination
self
with a fundamental
the burden
autonomy
and Lisa and Chris
interference
complaint
dignity
Defendants
liberty
to liberty
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
violates
including
As
74
enforce Measure 36
executive
state
including
branch relating
employee
Plaintiffs
benefits
As
75
rights
As
76
marriage licenses
rights
the State Registrar
that
prohibit same
and refusing to
register
As
77
denying same
Paul and
The
rights
of
all
for example
furnishing
including
of same sex couples
Plaintiffs
violate
violate
forms for
an d a
Bride
the constitutional
to equal treatment
County Defendant Waldruff
the constitutional
and Defendants
and deprives
rights
class
citizens
through
actions to enforce
their families
marriage ban brands lesbian s
AMENDED COMPLAINT
duties and
for example
to equal treatment
a message
all
of a critical
of
persons with
629023055 1
denies
same
as well as their
imposed stigma and
whom
same
1120
sex

of government
it
fosters
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
or sex
and actions to ensure
duties
the constitutional
violate
Defendant Woodward
25
violate
Lisa and Chris
The
as second
responsibilities
tax obligations
to equal treatment
Plaintiffs
Ben and
78
children
Defendant Rosenblum
records
vital
States Constitution
marriage licenses
without regard to sexual orientation
the marriage ban
including
of motor vehicles and health professions
compliance
Groom
to the United
including
Defendant Kitzhaber
and regulation
and sex
pursuant to his responsibility for the policies of the
to equal treatment
Amendment
with state law
compliance
for example
programs
constitutional
to
those taken
by
to equal protection
Plaintiffs
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
including
their
own
children
men and
couples in
Same
faced
Same
sex couples
Like different
with injury or
81
State s
and antipathy toward lesbians gay
Like
to different
sex
same sex couples
fall
in love
sex
plan
same sex couples
and take care of one another physically when
financially
illness
Plaintiffs
82
legal shelter
some
different
sex couples
some same
and dignitary reasons
romantic
sex spouses
together
83
Plaintiffs
responsibilities
different
and
their
dignity
the tangible resources and societal
for children of different
and legitimacy
that
access to marriage con
esteem
that
access to marriage confers
is
no
less
fers
on
sex couples
precious
than
sex couples

84
The
marriage ban targets lesbian and gay Oregonians as a class for exclusion
facially
from
both
and as applie d
85
Defendants
26
make
sex couples
The
one another emotionally and
children
worthy than others
futures together
support
less
all
80
their
is
bisexuals
79
couples
The
exclusion
conduct to
strict
of Plaintiffs
AMENDED COMPLAINT
their
sexual orientation
which Defendants
1120
629023055 1
conduct cannot
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
subjects
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
withstand
tailored
nor does
interests
it
interests
let
serve any such interests in an adequately
manner
86
gay men
Lesbians
and bisexuals have suffered a long and painful h
87
contribute
Sexual orientation
and conscience
that
a person
as a condition
89
through
or safe
professional
virtually
is
may
a core
defining
trait
that
not legitimately be required
to abandon
No
indeed
generally
credible evidence
is
fixed at an
supports
early
even
it
that
attempt
that
No
organization approves interventions
age and highly
the notion
s identity
that
if
resistant
were
to change
such interventions
are either
to change
of them have adopted policy statements cautioning
all
is
of equal treatment
Sexual orientation
intervention
effective
to perform in or
s ability
to society
88
possible
of
States
bears no relation to an individual
Sexual orientation
istory
and
sexual orientation
professionals
and the public about
these treatments
90
prejudice
might
Lesbians
gay men
ordinarily
protections
at
be
relied
Lesbians
half
democratic
27
Gay
gay men
the states
bodies
of those political
women
suspect
are systematically
and housing
underrepresented
right
in
at
629023055 1
that
rights
had when race
and
against
the federal level a
30
1120
state
and
nd
in
local
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
processes
respectively
federal
to marry through
and ongoing
minority
AMENDED COMPLAINT
insular
were declared to be suspect and quasi
more than
91
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
across the nation through
and have been
targeted
The
92
and as applied
solely
because
93
devoted
Chris
Paul a
each of the
Similarly
woman
Paul
wishes to marry a
Plaintiffs
is
precluded
woman
should marry
women
Given
is
no
that
basis
The
96
basis
is
of sex
both facially
validly
married
of the same sex
precluded from marrying her
there
Lisa
95
partner
life
is
on the
is
man and
not a
woman
were
The
recognized
against Plaintiffs
barring Plaintiffs
partner because she
life
perpetuating
wives
Because
94
men
in
and
women
to conform
those couples
fail
should marry
men
there are no longer
legal distinctions
for the sex based eligibility
exclusion
of Plaintiffs
and
or from being
to sex based stereotypes that
requirements for
and
marriage
their
gender based stereotypes cannot survive the heightened scrutiny required for sex
of
based
discrimination
by
the
97
Due
Process Clause
The
against
sexual orientation
liberty interests in
dignity
28
autonomy
and family
integrity
and association
right
1120
629023055 1
treatment
based on their sexual
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
to marry and their
Differential
exercise of fundamental rights and liberty interests
AMENDED COMPLAINT
based on
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
and sex subjects Defendants
orientation
US C
98
2201 and 2202
as though
fully
the issuance
100
irreparable
because
present and ongoing
Defendants
warranting
judgment
favorable decision
injuries
all
to Plaintiffs
of a declaratory
Rules 57 and 65
forth herein
to Plaintiffs
enjoining
identified
herein
for which
have no adequate
Plaintiffs
remedy
at
equity
in
101
protections
of marriage through
The
same sex couples
Oregon
set
inc orporate
Plaintiffs
99
law or
which
DECLARATORY
VII
complaint
strict
Defendants
28
conduct to
State will incur
and respects out
but not
all
of the
to no burden in allowing same sex couples to marry in
little
Plaintiffs
some
The
rights
balance
is
severe
subjecting
of hardships thus tips
strongly in favor of Plaintiffs
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
VIII
WHEREFORE
A
section
Declaring
5A
marriages of same
29
that
respectfully
the provisions
of state law that
Protection
Plaintiffs
exclude same
sex couples
his
of and enforcement
Oregon Revised Statutes 106 010
sex couples from marrying or
violate
AMENDED COMPLAINT
request that
violates
Plaintiffs
Amendment
rights
to the United
and any other sources
refuse recognition
under the Due Process and Equal
States Constitution
1120
629023055 1
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
to the
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
Permanently
by the State and
Constitution
its
enjoining and
subdivisions
further
including
Defendants
Oregon Revised Statutes 106 010
of Article 15
same sex couples from marriage or to refuse recognition
validly
Declaring
such as
ORS
that
ORS
106 041 1
subdivisions
rights
privileges
and
Defendants
of the Oregon
law to exclude
state
to the marriages of same
the State and
marry pursuant to the same
of
Oregon
all
106 150 1
further
rights
sex couples
privileges
its
and
only insofar as they
obligations
responsibilities
full
that
the State and
subdivisions
and
husband
to
to issue and register
restrictions
statutes referring
must grant to same sex couples
obligations
responsibilities
Requiring
ORS
and
full
including
106 010
and
its
5A
enforcement
married in another jurisdiction
B
wife
section
and any other sources of
bars
that
including
Defendants
marriage licenses
limitations
in their official
tofor same sex couples to
sex couples
freedom to marry
Recognizing
jurisdiction
E
to
inter
alia 42
EF
30
Awarding
US C
Granting
Plaintiffs
their
costs
expenses
AMENDED COMPLAINT
relief
and
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
629023055 1
fees pursuant
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
FG
Defendant
The
declaratory
acting in active concert
direction
31
and
injunctive
relief
s officers
employees
or participation
and agents
with any Defendant
is
sought against each
and against
all
persons
supervision
or control
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
629023055 1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
DATED
December 19 2013January
2014
Thomas
Kristina J
OSB No
Johnson
TRJohnson
010645
com
perkinscoie
Holm OSB No
112607

MIsaak
perkinscoie com
Perkins Coie LLP
Telephone
503 727 2000
OSB No
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
Johnson Johnson
Telephone
Foundation
KDiaz
Inc
970480
aclu
Telephone
American
Inc
or org
503 227 6928
Rose Saxe
RSaxe
of Oregon
OSB No
Kevin Daz
ACLU
PC
Schaller
541 683 2506
Cooperating
ACLU
071510
com
pro hac vice
Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
aclu org
Telephone
212 549 2627
Amanda Goad
American
AGoad
vice
Union Foundation
aclu org
Telephone
American
hac
pro
Civil Liberties
213 977 5244

Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
32
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
to be submitted
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL28727382
629023055 1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
Document comparison
by Workshare
Compare on Tuesday
January 14
2014
PM
3 52 43
Input
Document 1 ID
interwovenSite
28727382v6
Description
Document 2 ID
interwovenSite
29023055v1
Description
Rendering
DMS LEGAL
LEGAL
Complaint
DMS LEGAL
LEGAL
perkins
Legend
Insertion
Deletion
Moved from
Moved
to
Style change
Format change
Moved
deletion
Inserted
cell
Deleted
Moved
Split
cell
cell
Merged
Padding
cell
cell
Statistics
Count
Insertions
28
Deletions
28
Moved
from
Moved
to
Style
change
Format changed
Total
changes
0
0
60
marriage case
29023055
Amended
case
set
28727382
Complaint
marriage
From
To
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
H
Perkins Coie
Sent
1 14 2014 4 16 19
Subject
RE
Thanks
m scrambling
up oral argument
From
Isaak
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Subject
to
Sheila
14
and
Coie
2014
up
will
mailto
Prayer for Relief
will
get
back
misaak
take
to
a look
tomorrow
as soon
as I
finish
you then
perkinscoie
com
4 05 PM
Thomas
Rummell
case
Perkins
January
Modified
finish something
on another
Misha
PM
Rummell Complaint
Jr
Perkins
Complaint
Coie
Modified
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Prayer for Relief
Sheila
Thanks
both
for conferring
broad
enough
obligations
relations
Attached
of
to
marriage
statutes
to
with me this afternoon

enjoin
we
and
would
this email
is
changes
from our current
concern
as best
about
what
we
can
language
all
State
also specific
like
found
a modified
complaint
so if
actions
think
we
excluding
enough
to
may have
same
arrived
sex couples
identify portions
at
language
from the
of
the
that
rights
is
and
domestic
unconstitutional
Prayer for Relief

As I
this doesn
and
said on the
phone
would
do it
we
a redline document
we
would
welcome
like
to
showing
the
accommodate
any suggestion
your
from you
would
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
503
E MAIL
IRS
97209
727
346
2086
CIRCULAR
contained
Perkins
4128
2086
misaak
perkinscoie
230
regulations
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
ensure
perkinscoie
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
without
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
com
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
misaak
herein
message
com mailto
avoiding
have
LLP
Floor
Portland
FAX
Coie
Street
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
1 14 2014 4 16 40
Subject
RE
No
PM
Rummell Complaint
Modified
Prayer for Relief
Thanks
problem
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Potter
Sent
To
Coie
Sheila
Isaak
mailto sheila
January 14
Tuesday
Misha
Perkins
Coie
Subject
RE Rummell Complaint
Thanks
m scrambling
to
argument on another case
From
Isaak
Sent
Misha
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Subject
Sheila
Modified Prayer for Relief
nish
and
Coie
Perkins
January 14
Tuesday
doj state or us
potter
2014 4 16 PM
something up
up
oral
to you then
will get back
misaak
mailto
tomorrow as soon asnish

I
will take a look
com
perkinscoie
2014 4 05 PM
Thomas R
Jr
Rummell Complaint
Perkins
Coie
Middleton
Jennifer
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Sheila
Thanks
for conferring
with
portions
of
the domestic
Attached
to this
As
on the phone
said
any suggestion
email
me
this
afternoon
relations statutes
we
a modified Prayer
is
we
would
like
to
we may have
think
rights
would
like
for Relief
arrived at language
obligations
of
that
is
enough
all
to identify
and a
accommodate
and
redline
document
we
can
so if this doesn
do
we
it
would welcome
would
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
IRS CIRCULAR
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
otherwise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
Department
and IRS
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
contents
Thank you
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 15 2014 12 10 35
Subject
FW
am
From
be
to
trying
Sheila
nice
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Wednesday
To
Jennifer
Cc
Lake
2014 11 27 AM
January 15
Middleton
MIsaak
Geiger
Notice
This communication
intended
for
including
specific
and are hereby
Notice 2
To comply
communication
purpose
of
So
the complaint
party
recently
have been
am
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Portland
SW
OR
503 790 9060
Columbia
97258
we
and
Kevin Diaz
ECF
and
told
it
that
if
contain
is
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
not intended
to
US
behalf of our clients
likely
thought
Code
or
to
the existing complaint
you are going to
file
and cannot be
ii
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
believe
that you
all
received
notice
and
make sure
is
subject
with the State
an amended
contained
used
herein
yesterday
d check
you ve had conversations
federal tax advice
be used
or matter addressed
system but
seems
protected
inform you that any
is
any transaction
the
wondering
one
Suite 440
communication
is strictly
summary judgment on
for
re read your complaint
filing
com
any attachments
of our pleadings through
couple of grounds
it
may
and purpose
to another
a motion
that
IRS regulations
including
avoiding
recommending
with
this
notified
filed
perkinscoie
any attachments
individual
you should delete
recipient
attachments
copies
com TRJohnson
perkinscoie
Perriguey
Subject
We
PM
Geiger
complaint
to motions under
AGGs
and
if
about
so
their
FRCP 12 on a
misgivings about
what s your timeline
for
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 15 2014 12 43 16
Subject
Re
Hee
They
gotten
argument
call
actually
in a raft
new
on another
PM
Geiger
sent
of
Sheila
me a proposed
questions
case
amended
prayer
Judge
Haggerty
that
this morning
so now
yesterday
wanted
m the
hold
afternoon
counsel
up here
to
Do
but
d also just
address
in oral
you have
time for a
in a bit
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jan 15
LEaston
I
2014
to
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
Ann
12 10 PM
TRJohnson
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
be nice
January
15
Middleton
perkinscoie
Lake
Subject
Lea
com mailto
Easton
Jennifer
Cc
at
Justice
dorsayindianlaw
am trying
To
of
2014
MIsaak
11 27 AM
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
com mailto
perkinscoie
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
Kevin
com
Diaz
Perriguey
Geiger
Notice
This
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
and
Code
or
or matter
addressed
believe
that
thought
herein
We
filed
all
to
I
a motion for summary judgment
received
make
notice
re read
your complaint
FRCP
with the
State
going
file
to
Suite
503
AGGs
about
an amended
Easton
440
Portland
790
of
1 SW
OR
9060
LLP
Columbia
97258
recently
12 on a couple
Ann
Dorsay
copies
on behalf
our pleadings
of
our clients
through
the
yesterday
ECF system
but
you
d check
sure
motions under
Lea
and
and
of
it
seems likely
grounds
their misgivings
complaint
and
if
have
about
so
the
what
the
been
existing complaint
told
complaint
that
So I
you ve
is
had
subject
am wondering
s your timeline for filing
to
conversations
one
if
you are
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 15 2014 12 47 36
Subject
RE
Yes
am in oce
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Hee
mailto sheila
call
pm
to 3 30
pm
doj state or us
potter
2014 12 43 PM
January 15
Re
They
Geiger
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
you have time for a
call
in
in
but I d als
just
new
gotten in a raft of
oral argument on another case this morning
so now
a bit
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Jan 15
LEaston
am
a proposed amended prayer yesterday afternoon
Haggerty wanted counsel to address
Do
up here
the hold
me
sent
actually
questions that Judge
have a conference
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
On
PM
Geiger
the rest of day
Wednesday
Sheila
2014
Justice
12 10
at
PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
wrote
trying to be nice
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
To
Wednesday
January 15
Jennifer Middleton
TRJohnson
Cc
MIsaak
This communication
communication
com
perkinscoie
com
com
Kevin Diaz
avoiding
filed
with
including
penalties
any transaction
IRS
is
protected
under the
one
So
If
you are not the
or conf
in
tended recipient
I
I
the
ECF
recently and
have been told
am
wondering
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
it
fied that
strictly
is
federal tax advice
you should delete
any disclosure
prohibited
contained in this
and cannot be u sed

marketing
idential
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
summary judgment on
couple of grounds
is
Revenue
Internal
or matter addressed
a motion for
the complaint
by law
or the taking
we
regulations
any attachments
copies of our pleadings through
filing
and
contain privileged
To comply
communication
may
any attachments
copying
Notice
including
and purpose
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
Geiger
Notice
We
com
perkinscoie
AM
Lake Perriguey
Subject
this
2014 11 27
if
it
that
behalf of our clients yesterday
system but
seems
likely
thought
the existing
believe
file
you
received notice and
all
d check to make sure
complaint
is
subje ct to motions under
you ve had conversations with the State
you are going to
that
an amended complaint
AGGs
and
if
FRCP
about their misgivings
so what
12 on a
about
your timeline for
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Suite 440
Portland
LLP
Easton
1
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 15 2014 4 15 27
Subject
FW
From
Sent
Jennifer
Middleton
Wednesday
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Rose Saxe
Subject
Hi
Re
PM
JMiddleton
mailto
jjlslaw
com
2014 4 14 PM
Misha Isaak
Tom
Johnson
Geiger
Lake
We
don
see the few weeks involved
the State s responses
coordinating
Judge
in
into
our proposal
a single brief
not be having to wade through
will
having
State
all
Geiger
January 15
To
Sheila
to
respond twice
to streamline this
Having said that
as much as possible
we
will
the additional
of
all
as a material delay in the resolution of this case
we
though
be promoting
efficiency
and
quicker
and the possible delay
briefs
would
that
cannot agree to your proposal
We
In fact
resolution
by
because the
be occasioned by the
do want
to
work with you
and avoid delays that could be occasioned by
improve communication
failure to
coordinate
Jennifer
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
Eugene
541
Street
PC
Schaller
1050
Ste
OR 97401
683 2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
NOTICE
James Perriguey
Lake
may
This message
contain
lake
law works
com
communications
confidential
you have received this message in error please delete
If
it
and
protected
by the attorney client
the sender
notify
1 15 2014 2 56 PM
Hi Jennifer
The
had planned
State
The BRO
Is there
Our
situation
is
to
respond to our MSJ on Feb 10
going to cause delay
any way you could get
clients
it
are very wary that your intent
Would your
side
be
separate
is
willing to stipulate that
you raise result in the need for a
issue
despite
the assurances made by y
all
to
our
clients
done sooner
trial
to
if
get in the case and to delay
there
or
if
it
were any delay requested by BRO
anything
or
any of the Rummel
you do were to cause any delay
that
you
all
would
plaintiffs
or
if
agree to
from our suit
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may contain
return e mail with a
On
Jan 15
2014
copy
at
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
to lake
2 34 PM
Jennifer
Middleton
this
If
you are not the
e mail
JMiddleton
and
jjlslaw
all
intended
copies
com
recipient
please notify the sender immediately
and attachments
wrote
by
Hi
Lea Ann
Thanks for letting us know about

concerns
you
We
framed our prayer for
agreed to revise some of the language
soon as she gets back

Along those lines
understand
We
summary judgment
we
us and
to
to
file
which
relief
on proposed language
spoke with Lake
We
should
obviate any concerns that our presence in the case
expect to
to
the amendment
file
as
as soon as today or tomorrow
possibly
about the timeline that
respond to both of our motions jointly on or before March 10
with Sheila Potter about some
are similar to concerns she expressed
e agreed upon with the State for
a motion for summary judgment by February 10
should
Would you agree
have been speaking

understand
and sent her a proposal yesterday
have her agreement
that Sheila
intend
We
the summary judgment motion
how we
she has about
and propose
the Defendants
that
with any reply due two weeks later
would materially delay the
This timeline
Court s consideration
of
the claims
schedule
to that
Jennifer
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
Street
Eugene
OR 97401
PC
1050
683 2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
NOTICE
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
intended
for
including
specific
and are hereby
notified
or the taking of any action based
Notice 2
To comply
communication
the purpose
of
recommending
We
filed
and
copies
to another
a motion
for
of grounds
about the complaint

timeline for
filing
party
recently
am
one
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Suite 440
Portland
SW
OR
503 790 9060
Columbia
97258
is
it
and purpose
communication
strictly
we
protected
the sender
and
the
told
it
is
not intended
wondering
likely
US
to
If
you are not the
communication
this
file
or
ii
and canno
contained
promoting
be used
marketing
in
for
or
herein
d check
you are going to
federal tax advice
be used
Code
yesterday
thought

if
distribution of
or matter addressed
system but
seems
that
by law
protected
is
prohibited
ECF
inform you that any
any transaction
and
have been
So
notify
that
on
summary judgment on
and
a couple
this
any attachments
including
avoiding
it
com 1 15 2014 11 26 AM
any attachments
may contain
IRS regulations
with
communications
confidential
please delete
individual
you should delete
recipient
attachments
this
contain
dorsayindianlaw
This communication
Notice
may
This message
If
believe
that you
to
is
make
subject
all
received
notice
sure
541
Schaller
Ste
to motions under
FRCP 12 on
with the State

AGGs about their misgivings
an amended
complaint
and
if
so
what s your
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 15 2014 4 22 26
Subject
RE
Hm
Still
Maybe
seems like
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
To
a proposal
a you person
Ann
Potter
Subject
Jennifer
Middleton
Wednesday
January
Lea
Rose
Ann
Easton
Saxe
Subject
2014
if
a person
wanted
to
suggest
it
to
the
court
person
dorsayindianlaw
com
4 15 PM
Sent
Cc
a Lake
LEaston
15
raising
Geiger
From
To
worth
than
mailto
January
Sheila
FW
rather
Easton
PM
Geiger
Re
mailto
15
Lake
JMiddleton
2014
jjlslaw
com
4 14 PM
James Perriguey
Misha Isaak
Tom
Johnson
Geiger
Hi Lake
We
don
see the
this case
In
few weeks
fact
promoting efficiency
through
State
all
having
do want
and
of
to
the
to
avoid
and
quicker
additional
respond
work
involved
that
could
the
and
Having
to
State
resolution
briefs
twice
with you all
delays
in our proposal
by coordinating
as a material
s responses
because
the
the
Judge
possible delay
said that
though
we
streamline this as much
be occasioned
into
by failure
delay
a single
will
that
not
to
we
will
to
to
of
be
wade
be occasioned
agree
as possible
resolution
brief
be having
would
cannot
in the
by the
your proposal
improve
We
communication
coordinate
Jennifer
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson
Johnson
975
Street
Oak
Eugene
541
OR
683
Schaller
Ste
97401
2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
attorney
privilege
notify
client
the
Lake
PC
1050
This
message
If
may contain
you have
received
confidential
communications
this message
in error
protected
please delete
by the
it
and
sender
James Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
1 15 2014
2 56 PM
Hi Jennifer
The
State
The
BRO situation
had
planned
is
to
respond
going
to
to
cause
our MSJ
delay
on Feb 10
despite
the
assurances
made
by y all
to
our
clients
Is there
any way
Our clients
Would
of
are very
Rummel
you do were
Law
plaintiffs
to
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
to
sooner
your intent
stipulate
or if
any delay
done
issue
that
is
that
to
if
get
in the
there
were
you raise result

you all
would
Perriguey
Madison
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
it
LLC
Portland
T
cause
get
wary that
your side be willing
the
Lake
you could
law
Guardian
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
Justice
www
law
works
com
case
any delay
in the
agree
to
and
need
to
delay
requested
for a trial
separate
it
by BRO or any
or if
from our suit
anything
PLEASE DON
This
recipient
works
On
PRINT
com mailto
Jan 15
lake
2014
at
Hi Lea
Ann
Thanks
for letting
Sheila
Potter
understand
language
gets
law
us know
some
and
sent
to
tomorrow
Along
agreed
upon
we
those
the
and
March
obviate
any concerns
that
the
State
on or before
delete
jjlslaw
com
how
she expressed
yesterday
understand
We
to
that
our presence
motion
all
you
expect
We
framed
copies
We
to
agreed
file
the
language
that
spoke
Sheila
the
in the
you agree
We
the
to
and
would
that
to
intended
lake
law
attachments
amendment
possibly
to
speaking
later
some
which
of
as soon
as soon
about
file
with
for relief
revise
the
the
as she
as today
or
timeline that
a motion for summary
should respond
two weeks
case
to
been
with Lake
intend
Defendants
have
our prayer
on proposed
with any reply due

Would
you are not
wrote
we
for summary judgment
10
claims
this e mail and
summary judgment
propose
If
e mail with a copy
Middleton
her agreement
lines
information
by return
she has about
concerns
jointly
of
about
have
with the
and
JMiddleton
concerns
by February 10
consideration
com
her a proposal
us and
immediately
Jennifer
com mailto
about
or privileged
sender
works
are similar to
back
judgment
the
2 34 PM
jjlslaw
RESOURCES
confidential
please notify
JMiddleton
we
CONSERVE
e mail may contain
to
This
both
of
our motions
timeline should
materially delay
the
Court s
schedule
Jennifer
J
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson
Johnson
975
Street
Oak
Eugene
541
OR
683
Schaller
Ste
97401
2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
attorney
privilege
notify
client
the
Lea
PC
1050
This
message
If
may contain
you have
received
confidential
this message
communications
in error
protected
please delete
by the
it
and
sender
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
1 15 2014
11 26 AM
Notice
This
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
and
Code
or
or matter
addressed
believe
that
thought
herein
We
filed
all
to
I
received
make
notice
your complaint
motions under
FRCP
with the
State
going
file
to
Suite
503
AGGs
about
an amended
Easton
440
Portland
790
of
1 SW
OR
9060
LLP
Columbia
97258
recently
12 on a couple
Ann
Dorsay
copies
on behalf
our pleadings
of
our clients
through
the
yesterday
ECF system
but
you
d check
sure
re read
Lea
and
and
of
it
seems likely
grounds
their misgivings
complaint
and
if
have
about
so
the
what
the
been
existing complaint
told
complaint
that
So I
you ve
is
had
subject
am wondering
to
conversations
one
if
you are
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 15 2014 4 38 18
Subject
RE
Yes
am
their
From
Sheila
Sent
To
Potter
PM
find
it
that Jennifer keeps
fascinating
wanting
us to
to something without
commit
first
pleadings
Wednesday
doj state or us
January 15
2014 4 22 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Hm
RE
From
Sent
To
like a proposal
a you person
Lea Ann Easton
Wednesday
Potter
From
Sheila
FW
Subject
Sent
Geiger
seems
Still
Maybe
Jennifer
Middleton
a person wanted
to suggest
it
to
the
court
Lake person
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 4 15 PM
Rose Saxe
JMiddleton
mailto
January 15
Lea Ann Easton
Hi
LEaston
if
Cc
Re
mailto
raising
Geiger
Wednesday
Subject
worth
rather than a
January 15
To
jjlslaw
com
2014 4 14 PM
Misha Isaak
Tom
Johnson
Geiger
Lake
We
don
see the few weeks involved
the State s responses
coordinating
Judge
State
all
Geiger
working on that
having seen
Sheila
in
into
our proposal
a single brief
not be having to wade through
will
having
to
respond twice
to streamline this
all
we
will
the additional
of
Having said that
as much as possible
as a material delay in the resolution of this case
though
we
be promoting
efficiency
and
quicker
and the possible delay
briefs
that
cannot agree to your proposal
improve communication
We
In fact
resolution
would
by
because the
be occasioned by the
do want
to
work with you
and avoid delays that could be occasioned by
failure to
coordinate
Jennifer
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
Eugene
541
Street
PC
Schaller
1050
Ste
OR 97401
683 2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
If
Lake
NOTICE
may
This message
contain
James Perriguey
lake
law works
com
communications
confidential
it
and
notify
protected
the sender
1 15 2014 2 56 PM
Hi Jennifer
The
Is there
Our
had planned
State
The BRO
situation
is
to
respond to our MSJ on Feb 10
going to cause delay
any way you could get
clients
it
despite
the assurances made by y
done sooner
are very wary that your intent
is
to
get in the case and to delay
it
all
to
our
clients
Would your
be
side
willing to stipulate that
you raise result in the need for a
issue
separate
if
were any delay requested by BRO
there
or
trial
any of the Rummel
or
you do were to cause any delay
anything
if
that
you
or
plaintiffs
would
all
if
agree to
from our suit
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may contain
copy
return e mail with a
On
Hi
Jan 15
2014
CONSERVE RESOURCES
confidential
2 34 PM
at
to lake
Middleton
Jennifer
you are not the
If
this
e mail
JMiddleton
and
all
intended
com
jjlslaw
recipient
please notify the sender immediately
by
and attachments
copies
wrote
Lea Ann
Thanks for letting us know about

concerns
you
We
framed our prayer for
agreed to revise some of the language
soon as she gets back

Along those lines
understand
We
summary judgment
we
us and
to
to
file
which
relief
on proposed language
spoke with Lake
We
should
obviate any concerns that our presence in the case
expect to
to
the amendment
file
as
as soon as today or tomorrow
possibly
about the timeline that
respond to both of our motions jointly on or before March 10
with Sheila Potter about some
are similar to concerns she expressed
e agreed upon with the State for
a motion for summary judgment by February 10
should
Would you agree
have been speaking

understand
and sent her a proposal yesterday
have her agreement
that Sheila
intend
We
the summary judgment motion
how we
she has about
and propose
the Defendants
that
with any reply due two weeks later
would materially delay the
This timeline
Court s consideration
of
the claims
schedule
to that
Jennifer
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
Street
Eugene
OR 97401
PC
1050
683 2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
NOTICE
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
intended
for
including
specific
and are hereby
notified
or the taking of any action based
Notice 2
To comply
communication
the purpose
of
recommending
We
filed
and
copies
to another
a motion
for
of grounds
about the complaint

timeline for
filing
one
party
recently
is
it
and purpose
communication
strictly
we
protected
the sender
and
am
the
told
it
is
not intended
wondering
likely
US
to
If
you are not the
communication
this
file
or
ii
and canno
contained
promoting
be used
marketing
in
for
or
herein
d check
you are going to
federal tax advice
be used
Code
yesterday
thought

if
distribution of
or matter addressed
system but
seems
that
by law
protected
is
prohibited
ECF
inform you that any
any transaction
and
have been
So
notify
that
on
summary judgment on
and
a couple
this
any attachments
including
avoiding
it
com 1 15 2014 11 26 AM
any attachments
may contain
IRS regulations
with
communications
confidential
please delete
individual
you should delete
recipient
attachments
this
contain
dorsayindianlaw
This communication
Notice
may
This message
If
believe
that you
to
is
make
subject
all
received
notice
sure
541
Schaller
Ste
to motions under
FRCP 12 on
with the State

AGGs about their misgivings
an amended
complaint
and
if
so
what s your
Lea Ann
Dorsay Easton LLP
Suite 440
Portland
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
is
privileged
delete the message
me
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
from the context or otherw
the contents conf
ise that
idential
you have received

and immediately
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 15 2014 4 39 14
Subject
RE
It
s weird
that
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
To
Ann
Potter
Subject
Yes
From
Potter
Sent
Wednesday
Ann
RE
Hm
Still
Maybe
first
H
Lea
Wednesday
Ann
com
fascinating
that
Jennifer
keeps
wanting
us to
commit to
suggest
it
the
their pleadings
sheila
2014
potter
doj state
or us
4 22 PM
worth
than
mailto
January
a Lake
LEaston
15
raising
2014
if
a person
wanted
to
to
court
person
dorsayindianlaw
com
4 15 PM
Geiger
Jennifer
Middleton
Wednesday
January
Ann
Easton
Saxe
Subject
15
rather
Sent
Rose
it
seen
a proposal
From
Lea
mailto
Easton
Sheila
FW
Cc
find
that
Geiger
Sent
To
4 38 PM
is
Easton
seems like
Potter
on earth
dorsayindianlaw
2014
having
January
a you person
Subject
LEaston
15
on that
Sheila
From
To
mailto
Why
without
Lea
trust her absolutely
Geiger
am working
Subject
January
Sheila
RE
something
To
you don
Easton
PM
Geiger
Re
mailto
15
Lake
JMiddleton
2014
jjlslaw
com
4 14 PM
James Perriguey
Misha Isaak
Tom
Johnson
Geiger
Hi Lake
We
don
see the
this case
In
few weeks
fact
promoting efficiency
through
State
all
having
do want
and
of
to
the
to
avoid
work
involved
and
quicker
additional
respond
that
could
the
and
Having
to
State
resolution
briefs
twice
with you all
delays
in our proposal
by coordinating
as a material
s responses
because
the
the
Judge
possible delay
said that
though
we
streamline this as much
be occasioned
into
by failure
delay
a single
will
that
not
to
we
will
to
to
improve
of
be
wade
be occasioned
agree
as possible
resolution
brief
be having
would
cannot
in the
by the
your proposal
We
communication
coordinate
Jennifer
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson
Johnson
975
Street
Oak
Eugene
541
OR
683
Schaller
Ste
97401
2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
attorney
privilege
notify
client
the
Lake
PC
1050
This
message
If
may contain
you have
received
confidential
this message
communications
in error
protected
please delete
it
and
sender
James Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
1 15 2014
2 56 PM
Hi Jennifer
The
State
The
BRO situation
had
planned
is
to
respond
going
to
to
cause
our MSJ
delay
on Feb 10
despite
clients
Is there
by the
any way
you could
get
it
done
sooner
the
assurances
made
by y all
to
our
Our clients
Would
of
are very
your side be willing
the
Rummel
you do were
Lake
Law
plaintiffs
to
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
cause
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
Civil
PRINT
Jan 15
at
Ann
Thanks
for letting
Sheila
Potter
understand
the
law
were
would
case
to
any delay
in the
agree
and
to
need
delay
it
requested
by BRO or any
for a trial
separate
or if
anything
from our suit
and
sent
to
us know
tomorrow
Along
some
agreed
upon
we
those
State
and
on or before
March
obviate
any concerns
that
the
com
how
she expressed
yesterday
understand
We
to
that
our presence
motion
you
expect
We
framed
copies
We
to
agreed
file
the
language
that
spoke
Sheila
the
in the
you agree
We
and
would
that
to
intended
lake
law
attachments
amendment
possibly
to
speaking
later
some
which
of
as soon
as soon
about
file
with
for relief
revise
the
the
as she
as today
or
timeline that
a motion for summary
should respond
two weeks
case
to
been
with Lake
intend
Defendants
have
our prayer
on proposed
with any reply due

Would
all
the
to
wrote
we
for summary judgment
10
claims
jjlslaw
summary judgment
propose
you are not
Middleton
her agreement
lines
If
e mail with a copy
this e mail and
she has about
concerns
jointly
of
the
information
by return
delete
JMiddleton
about
have
with the
and
Jennifer
concerns
by February 10
consideration
com
immediately
com
her a proposal
us and
works
or privileged
sender
com mailto
about
law
RESOURCES
works
are similar to
back
judgment
there
you raise result

you all
confidential
2 34 PM
jjlslaw
Hi Lea
www
CONSERVE
lake
2014
JMiddleton
we
if
in the
Justice
please notify
com mailto
language
that
com http
e mail may contain
recipient
gets
any delay
that
get
97205
227
skype
On
issue
to
Street
Oregon
www
works
stipulate
or if
is
Perriguey
http
This
to
your intent
LLC
Portland
OTLA
wary that
to
This
both
of
our motions
timeline should
materially delay
the
Court s
schedule
Jennifer
J
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson
Johnson
975
Street
Oak
Eugene
541
OR
683
Schaller
Ste
97401
2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
attorney
privilege
notify
client
the
Lea
PC
1050
This
message
If
may contain
you have
received
confidential
this message
communications
in error
protected
please delete
by the
it
and
sender
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
1 15 2014
11 26 AM
Notice
This
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
and
Code
or
or matter
addressed
believe
that
thought
herein
We
all
to
filed
received
make
sure
notice
and
copies
of
on behalf
our pleadings
of
our clients
through
the
yesterday
ECF system
but
you
d check
re read
your complaint
motions under
FRCP
with the
State
going
file
Lea
to
Suite
AGGs
about
an amended
Easton
440
Portland
of
it
seems likely
grounds
their misgivings
complaint
and
if
have
about
so
the
what
the
been
existing complaint
told
complaint
that
So I
you ve
is
had
subject
am wondering
to
conversations
if
you are
one
790
LLP
1 SW
OR
Columbia
97258
9060
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
and
Ann
Dorsay
503
recently
12 on a couple
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
To
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
H
Perkins Coie
CC
Johnson
Sent
1 15 2014 5 50 08
Subject
RE
Thomas
will
anything
get
From
back
Isaak
yet today
to
Cc
Johnson
Subject
Thomas
Rummell
14
brain
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Prayer for Relief
and am looking at the prayer now

I think that this
day in court or driving or in meetings
and I haven t
is
maybe not
at
100
m going
to
mull tonight
and
morning
Perkins
Sent
Tuesday
January
To
Potter Sheila H
Modified
of meetings
I spent the
so the
you in the
Misha
Perkins Coie
Rummell Complaint
Okay
so I only just got out
addresses my concerns
but
eaten
R Jr
PM
Coie
2014
Jr
mailto
Perkins
Complaint
misaak
perkinscoie
com
4 05 PM
Coie
Modified
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Prayer for Relief
Sheila
Thanks
both
for conferring
broad
enough
obligations
relations
of
to

enjoin
marriage
statutes
we
all
and
would
State
also specific
like
actions
found
think
we
excluding
enough
to
may have
same
arrived
sex couples
identify portions
at
language
from the
of
the
that
rights
is
and
domestic
unconstitutional
Attached
to this email is a modified Prayer for Relief and
changes from our current complaint
As I said on the phone
a redline document showing the

we would like to accommodate your
concern
welcome
about
as best
what
we
can
language
so if
this doesn
do it
we
would
any suggestion
from you
would
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
Perkins
Couch
Coie
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
OR
97209
4128
PHONE
503 727 2086
FAX
503 346 2086
E MAIL
misaak
IRS CIRCULAR
regulations
contained
Perkins
perkinscoie
230 DISCLOSURE
To
we inform you that
Coie
avoiding
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
message
and
it
perkinscoie
in error
any attachments
com
ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS

unless expressly indicated otherwise
any federal
including
cannot
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
misaak
any attachments
be used
herein
have
com mailto
to
may contain
another
party
privileged
please advise
without
by the
taxpayer
the
copying
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
contents
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Johnson
Sent
1 15 2014 9 26 24
Subject
Re Rummell
We
Thanks Sheila
Thomas
Coie
R Jr
PM
Perkins Coie
Complaint
Modified
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
Prayer for Relief
look forward to hearing any further thoughts you have
Misha
Jan 15
Okay
2014
so
but
the brain
From
is
Misha
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
not at 100
sheila
Sheila
m going
Coie
Perkins
January 14
Tuesday
Subject
Sheila
potter
am looking
at the prayer
now
and
haven
think
t
this addresses
my
eaten anything yet today
so
to mull tonight and will get back to you

in the morning
misaak
mailto
wrote
doj state or us
spent the day in court or driving or in meetings
maybe
Isaak
Sent
Potter
only just got out of meetings and
concerns
PM
5 50
at
that
On
com
perkinscoie
2014 4 05 PM
Thomas R
Jr
Rummell Complaint
Perkins
Coie
Middleton
Jennifer
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Sheila
Thanks
for conferring
with
portions
of
the domestic
Attached
to this
As
on the phone
said
any suggestion
email
me
this
afternoon
relations statutes
we
a modified Prayer
is
we
would
like
to
we may have
think
rights
would
like
for Relief
arrived at language
obligations
of
that
is
enough
all
to identify
and a
accommodate
and
redline
document
we
can
so if this doesn
do
we
it
would welcome
would
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
IRS CIRCULAR
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
otherwise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
Department
and IRS
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
contents
Thank you
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
1 16 2014
Subject
Rummel
VON TER STEGGE

H
8 35 56 AM
Sheila
Hi Sheila
Have you
agreed to the Plaintiffs
proposed schedule
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
in
Rummel
haven
gotten
bac k to them yet
From
Potter
To
H
VON TER STEGGE
8 48 43 AM
Sheila
Katharine
Sent
1 16 2014
Subject
RE Rummel
What
since
ve
it
said is
at
that
if
the
conditional
agreement
them
consolidation
on the
But
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
Thursday
January
16
Potter
Sheila
piece
From
Subject
along
don
Sent
To
Court consolidates
least moves things
and
want
the
addresses
to
kick
cases
our chief
the
d be fine
concern
of
Geiger plaintiffs
with that
delay
feet
So
out
schedule
sort of
from under
you know
mailto
2014
katevts
multco us
8 36 AM
Rummel
Hi Sheila
Have
you agreed
to
the
Plaintiffs
proposed
schedule
Attorney
Multnomah
County
in Rummel
haven
yet
Thanks
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
500
3377
co
Portland
OR
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
gotten
back
to
them
From
To
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
H
Perkins Coie
CC
Johnson
Sent
1 16 2014 3 13 04
Subject
RE
Okay
here s where I
paragraph B
and the
same
sex couples
that
to
then
ruling
back
on
And
identified to
that s fine
the
words
husband
that
the
of
61 and
the
paragraph
paragraph
ve
Court to
this
agreed
73
and
I
find
wife
think
to
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
we
has some
you can
pop
denying
all
know
what
laws
we
saying
that
these
language
rights
to
that
same
to
some
extent
some
degree
asked
unknown
to move
to
go into
number and
for a more
Is every
court
and
at
are the
respond
the
laws
the
and
court
statutes
to supplementation
which laws you re
statute
list
of state laws
definite statement
lists
sex couples
re looking
not exclusive
and may be subject
what s at issue in the case
and
to
in any other
in a paragraph
laws
unconstitutional
being
com
is the
such as
in relief
that preclude marriage for
of
unconstitutional
m still
jjlslaw
Prayer for Relief
If
package
then
constitutionality
of a completely
think I don t have any choice but
we
Modified
date
but that the list
is
we just need some sense of
asking
Without
if
Perkins Coie
ve landed
The only remaining issue we have
squishy
and all other sources of state law
are part
to
R Jr
PM
Rummell Complaint
in paragraphs
your mind
refer
Thomas
that
as to
at
It
contains
the
the
which
s not
point I
something
case
Sheila
From
Sent
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
mailto
Tuesday
January 14
2014 4 05 PM
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Subject
Sheila
perkinscoie
com
Thomas
Rummell
misaak
Jr
Perkins
Complaint
Coie
Modified
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Prayer for Relief
Sheila
Thanks
both
for conferring
broad
enough
obligations
relations
Attached
of
to
marriage
statutes
to

enjoin
we
and
would
this email
is
changes
from our current
concern
as best
about
what
we
language
can
all
State
actions
also specific
like
found
a modified
complaint
so if
think
we
excluding
enough
to
may have
same
arrived
sex couples
identify portions
at
language
from the
of
the
that
rights
is
and
domestic
unconstitutional
Prayer for Relief

As I
this doesn
and
said on the
phone
would
do it
we
a redline document
we
would
welcome
like
to
showing
the
accommodate
any suggestion
your
from you
would
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
Couch
Coie
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2086
FAX
503
E MAIL
IRS
346
CIRCULAR
regulations
contained
Perkins
avoiding
2086
misaak
perkinscoie
230
we
DISCLOSURE
com mailto
To
inform you that
Coie
LLP
to
penalties
be used
that
and
misaak
ensure
unless
compliance
to
any attachments
be used
promoting
herein
or any attachments
com
expressly indicated
including
cannot
perkinscoie
by the
taxpayer
another
party
otherwise
is
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
and
any transaction
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
addressed
ii
NOTICE
have
This
communication
received
message
and
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
privileged
please advise
without
the
copying
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 16 2014 4 21 11
Subject
Quick note
Perkins
Coie
no amended
we
ll
and
see if
what
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
they
PM
wrangling
m guessing
have
it
in mind is
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
are still
complaint
Sheila
1515
Sheila
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
5000
over
ll
the
wording
be tomorrow
also what
have
of
We
their allegations
have
in mind
an agreement
and
prayer
in principle
Hence
and
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 16 2014 4 40 20
Subject
RE
Sheila
H
PM
Quick note
Interesting
We
scheduling
Jennifer said in her email today
the changes
re having
with Jennifer
call
When
were minor
and Tom tomorrow

expected
that they
read through
the proposed
to talk about their

amended complaint
the state to sign
amendment
on
off
didn
their
language
think
that
it
and
this
morning and
would address your
based on our discussions
concerns
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 4 21 PM
January 16
Thursday
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Quick note
Perkins Coie and

complaint
have
in
Sheila
are
also
Trial
Portland
Phone
ll
be tomorrow
have
in
We
have an agreement
prayer
in principle
and
Hence no amended
we
ll
see
if
what they
mind
Counsel
Oregon Department
SW
what
it
and
Potter
Deputy Chief
1515
wrangling over the wording of their allegations
still
m guessing
mind is
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 16 2014 4 41 23
Subject
RE
You
were
quite
From
Lea
Sent
Thursday
To
Ann
Potter
Subject
We
and
such
mailto
January
16
as
still
LEaston
2014
makes me itchy
dorsayindianlaw
com
4 40 PM
Quick
Interesting
The
Easton
Sheila
RE
complaint
right
PM
Quick note
note
re having
a call
scheduling
with Jennifer
Jennifer
sign off
on their language
this morning
and
proposed
amendment
it
didn
think
and
Tom
said in her email

that
the
tomorrow
today
changes
would
that
were
address
to
talk
they
minor
about
expected
When
your concerns
their amended
the
read
based
state
to
through
the
on our
discussions
Lea
Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
Coie
no amended
ll
and
what
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
sheila
2014
are still
I
they
potter
doj state
or us
4 21 PM
wrangling
m guessing
have
it
in mind is
over
ll
the
wording
be tomorrow
also what
of
We
have
their allegations
have
an agreement
and
prayer
Hence
in principle
and
in mind
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
16
Potter
Portland
Phone
complaint
see if
SW
mailto
note
Sheila
1515
January
Easton
Quick
Perkins
we
Sheila
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 16 2014 5 16 27
Subject
Re
Well at least
we
know
On
are assured that their clients are well represented by
2014
You were
Sent
To
who can go
to
very deep bench
its
sleep better having been assured of their abilities and I
Jan 16
From
PM
Quick note
experience in this kind of litigation

I
Sheila
at
Lea Ann Easton
Potter
The
quite right
mailto
Potter
Sheila
such as
still
LEaston
sheila
makes
potter
ed
skill
of attorneys
know you do
team of veteran lawyers with
for help on these issues
too
wrote
doj state or us
me itchy
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 4 40 PM
January 16
Thursday
Subject
PM
4 41
a very
Sheila
RE Quick note
Interesting
We
scheduling
Jennifer said in her email today
the changes
re having
with Jennifer
call
When
were minor
and Tom tomorrow
read through
expected
that they
the proposed
to talk about their

amended complaint
the state to sign
amendment
on
off
didn
their
language
think
that
it
and
this
morning and
would address your
based on our discussions
concerns
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 4 21 PM
January 16
Thursday
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Quick note
Perkins Coie and

complaint
have
in
Sheila
are
also
Trial
Portland
Phone
ll
be tomorrow
have
in
We
have an agreement
prayer
in principle
and
Hence no amended
we
ll
see
if
what they
mind
Counsel
Oregon Department
SW
what
it
and
Potter
Deputy Chief
1515
wrangling over the wording of their allegations
still
m guessing
mind is
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 17 2014 8 33 23
Subject
Re
Thank
kind
god
of
it
s not
Deputy
Chief
AM
Quick note
just our raggedy
destruction
Sheila
Sheila
we
all
team
might have
of
schmucks
wrought
and
without
dolts anymore
adult
Lord
only knows
what
supervision
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jan 16
LEaston
at
Well
of
least we
of
know
On
Lea
sleep
2014
were
From
Lea
Sent
Thursday
Ann
Potter
Subject
Easton
We
and
16
of
Sheila
represented
litigation
who
by
can
a very
go to
its
skilled
very
team
deep
their abilities
and
know
you do too
sheila
still
LEaston
2014
wrote
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
makes me itchy
dorsayindianlaw
com
4 40 PM
Quick
Interesting
mailto
January
as
of
com
issues
assured
Potter
such
are well
in this kind
or us mailto
The
dorsayindianlaw
their clients
been
4 41 PM
right
Sheila
RE
complaint
at
Easton
LEaston
on these
having
doj state
quite
that
with experience
better
potter
Ann
com mailto
are assured
lawyers
Jan 16
To
5 16 PM
attorneys for help
sheila
You
at
Justice
dorsayindianlaw
veteran
bench
I
2014
of
note
re having
a call
scheduling
with Jennifer
Jennifer
sign off
on their language
this morning
and
proposed
amendment
it
didn
think
and
Tom
said in her email

that
the
tomorrow
today
changes
would
that
were
address
to
talk
they
minor
about
expected
When
your concerns
their amended
the
read
based
state
to
through
the
on our
discussions
Lea
Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
Coie
no amended
ll
and
what
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
sheila
2014
are still
I
they
potter
doj state
or us
4 21 PM
wrangling
m guessing
have
it
in mind is
over
ll
the
wording
be tomorrow
also what
of
We
have
their allegations
have
an agreement
and
prayer
Hence
in principle
and
in mind
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
16
Potter
Portland
Phone
complaint
see if
SW
mailto
note
Sheila
1515
January
Easton
Quick
Perkins
we
Sheila
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Johnson
Sent
1 17 2014 12 05 50
Subject
Rummell complaint
Attachments
Amended
Thomas
Coie
Perkins Coie
Jr
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
PM
Modified
Complaint
Prayer for Relief
DOCX
marriage case
Sheila
we
think
re there
look to see
if
it
We
modified the Prayer for Relief to
accommodates
fit
the concept discussed with you by phone yesterday
Please take a
your concern
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
IRS CIRCULAR
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
Thomas
OSB No
Johnson
TRJohnson
Holm OSB No
Kristina J
KDiaz
aclu
PERKINS COIE
Facsimile
OR
Portland
Telephone
OR
Telephone
97209 4128
RSaxe
aclu org
Amanda Goad
AGoad
OSB No
Middleton
Jennifer
JOHNSON JOHNSON
975 Oak Street
OR
Eugene
Telephone
vice
UNION
CIVIL LIBERTIES
FOUNDATION
SCHALLER
125 Broad Street
PC
New
Suite 1050
97401
York
Telephone
541 683 2506
Facsimile
NY
18th Floor
10004
212 549 2627

212 549 2650
541 484 0882
Facsimile
Cooperating
ACLU
pro hac
aclu org
AMERICAN
071510
com
jjlslaw
503 227 6948
503 727 2000
JMiddleton
97240
503 227 6928
Tenth Floor
Street
503 727 2222
Facsimile
INC
Box 40585
Portland
LLP
Couch
970480
or org
112607
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
MIsaak
perkinscoie com
1120
OSB No
Kevin Daz
010645
com
perkinscoie
Inc

DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
PAUL
LISA
RUMMELL
BENJAMIN WEST
and CHRISTINE TANNER
and
CHICKADONZ
No
6 13 cv 02256
TC

Plaintiffs
AMENDED COMPLAINT
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
in
her official
capacity
Statistics
capacity
JENNIFER
WOODWARD
as State Registrar
in his official
Pursuant to 42
1983
as Attorney
in
Center for
RANDY WALRUFF
Multnomah
ELLEN
of Oregon
her official
General of Oregon
Health
in his official
as Governor
ROSENBLUM
AND
FOR DECLARATORY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
and
capacity
as
County Assessor
Defendants
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
INTRODUCTION
not
Paul Rummell and
Plaintiffs
committed
42
US C
1983
through
sex couples
education
seeking declaratory
jamin West
that works to advance
same
Ben
Amendment
and
and Lisa Chickadonz
and advocacy
injunctive
Plaintiffs
in
couples a dignity and status of immense import
marriage
Since
which
partnerships
offer
amended
to marry
in
result
2004 to
only
Yet
from marrying as a
2008
Oregon has allowed
some
Oregon
On
a legal opinion
that
the Deputy
States
same
and
their
and provide
none of the
sex couples in Oregon are barred
sex couples
Windsor
The
next day
Mi
chael
outside
the State continues
after
who
the
the Chief Operating
Jordan
of Oregon
directed
all
1120
state
including
to refuse to allow same
sex
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
sex couples
marriages performed
Nevertheless
enduring
sex
all
AMENDED COMPLAINT
confers upon
by excluding them from the freedo
agencies
sex couples
It
and because the Oregon Constitution was
together
life
of marriage
and
recognized
refusing to do so would likely be unconstitutional
decision in United
marriages of same
lly
because
right
sex couples to enter into domestic
out lesbian and gay Oregonians
October 16 2013
married in other states
Supreme Court
same
statutes
based solely on their sexual orientation
and
of Oregon
and other committed
of existing
single
state
Plaintiffs
state
Plaintiffs
through
society as the universa
of a couple s commitment to build family
celebrated hallmark
is
States Constitution caused by the exclusion of
to the United
gay bisexual
relief
Education Fund
Basic Rights
Plaintiff
and Christine
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
couples to marry in Oregon
entities
like
The
exclusion
from marriage
For example
marry for the same reasons as
commitment before
family
their
friends
Plaintiff
organization
that
that
Basic Rights
Plaintiffs
not other
exclude same
Ben
and wish to
are unmarried
to publicly declare their love and
Education Fund
Basic Rights
their child
Th
a statewide civil
is
and advocacy
education
and
it
is
rights
ese efforts include opposition
sex couples
sex
has a long history of public
marriage for same
Paul and
harms upon same
bisexual
inflicts
sex couples
different
the security and protections
gay
Jordan s directive
L B
Mr
Further
on
to restrictions
active in ongoing
efforts to repeal that
provision
Our
violated
denied married women legal independence
discriminatory laws
enhanced
To
the contrary
Indeed
and the
right
of marriage does
anti
to
marriage laws that
as of today
17
in
make
not depend
on maintaining such
states
and the
District
laws and laws that
miscegenation
restrictions
Ending the exclusion of lesbian and gay couples
the institution
different
such as
one by one
rom
of Columbia same
has
marriage
is
no
sex couples are
marrying and the institution of marriage continues to thrive
Plaintiffs
of the law
this suit
pursuant to 42
the State s exclusion of same
AMENDED COMPLAINT
eans to secure their rights to
enforcement
that
of
it
and
Accordingly
injunctive
Plaintiffs
relief
bring
on the grounds
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
inflicted
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
and Oregon
statutes violates
Amendment
to the United
States Constitution
PARTIES
II
Plaintiffs
Paul Rummell
Oregon
Portland
Paul
Paul
age 43
is
Ben
and Benjamin West
States Air Force
the theatre arts
and for the
age 35 worked
in
Oregon and had
Paul and
walked into a pub
conversation
during
friends
Gay
because
a Pride block party
because
it
was
walking
kiss after
after
Paul and
currently in a program
Ben were born and
raised
upbringings
Ben met
some
is
in
Ben
religious
father
in
last
the past worked
in
Father s
Day
Their
Pride in 2006
As soon
was
Paul
fact
first
that
date
Ben had
Ben
as
They started up a
the following
evening
ended with a
his
single
after
10
Paul and
household
income to
married
Ben have combined
qualify
However
interest
Fortunately
Ben
are concerned
sometime
in
Even though they
a house
live
they needed
to include
they
but not at the more favorable
coverage
if
In 2010
Paul and
Ben knew
AMENDED COMPLAINT
were not
but Paul and
Paul has to change
to one another
jobs
Perkins Coie
1120
Even
Couch Street
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Ben
veteran s interest
to their medical
as one
the future
11
finances
rate
their
Phone
Fax
OR
LLP
Tenth Floor
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
wedding
like
ceremony to declare
on August 21 2010
place
Mayor Sam Adams

parents attended
very
much wants
12
to officiate
Ben
to
declined
to have a civil
make
Paul
the proceedings
was
feel
of what
Paul an d
children
who had been

home
home
respite
13
placed
with Paul and
LB
L B
Ben
Ben worked
Paul and
14
without
Paul and
Ben want
and
especially
officials
to
make
Ben completed
Ben
their relationship
to
term placements of three children
that their
LB
L B
grows up
family
about
L B
they are concerned
LB
was
term placement
LB
and
the process
in
is
a safe and stable
L B
home
peers
about whether
may
by
his
not understand
legally
new
less
in
ma
rried in
Oregon
family
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
of
they travel
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
all
children
sure that
of marriage and he
to focus on helping
Paul and
from society
protections
parents
life
necessary
extensively
They are concerned
When
to be finalized
the repeated message
their relationship
made
then
Although Paul
a six year old boy with serious behavioral issues
history
foster
in
Portland
represents
it
they had long
In June of 2012
for him very low
last
checks
In the course of about a year and a half
and provided
hand
and background
studies
more legitimate
Ben were
fathers
the training
Ben asked
Paul and
raised to believe in the sanctity
marriage because
dealt
The ceremony took
love and commitment to each other
their
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
15
Lisa Chickadonz
Oregon
professor
that
work
included
age 56
Lisa
Chris age 66
of nursing
in clinical
Lisa
is
is
Chris
is
an
assistant
research
and administrative
teaching
Both Lisa and
capacities
16
Lisa and Chris met in 1982 and began
had a private commitment ceremony
and
create
in
a family together
raise
home
studies
in
and exchanged
Lisa
1994
is
The
dating in 1985
rings
Shortly thereafter
In addition
The
legal rights
own
all
and
responsibilities
Oregon
wills
to same
wanted to be
Chris
of
so
child
come
that
as close
married couples with respect
Again
between each other
dollars
that
they otherwise
they have
and health care
March 3 2004
leg and a lawn chair
their
the children were subjected to derogatory
AMENDED COMPLAINT
down
all
They had
to the county building the night before
to be
first
in line
1120
The
following
While waiting
in
from opponents
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
they could
stayed out all night
line
LEGAL29023055
if
Doing
married for years and headed
with a broken
the same
directives
sex couples on
legally
to approximate
tried
When
18
licenses
was born
respective
Katie
in
children
children
jointly
marry
they
they decided to
and related expenses to perform second parent adoptions for each
17
They
1986
as possible to creating the same legal rights and responsibilities
two
two
to the
In September
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
of marriage
for same
19
that
celebration
Upon
And
family interacted
was no
March 3 2004 by
and celebrated by
involvement
what a
of
and with marriage
how
community
respected
Undaunted
sex couples
their
central
part of their
life
now
understood
When
represented
it
what
was
to them
whom
Lisa and
and to
their
was acknowledged
their
difference
neighbors
in
how
joined in the
their
extended
their
their relationship
introducing
entailed
Importantly
the
of
state
love and commitment by granting the same rights a nd
to the couple as any other married couple
able to marry Lisa and Chris memorialized the recognition
21
it
of the level of commitment that relationship
framed marriage
hand
with them
Family members
responsibilities
meaningful
20
question
in
home from
their arrival
certificate
license in their
by hanging
their
home
after their
was
marriage
invalidated
by the Oregon
laws of Oregon
recognized
their
marriage didn
by the State they
called
If
recognized
that registering
married again
it
awful
not the same
now
that
was no
if
they were married
ser ves as a painful
reminder
They knew
what
it
was
Lisa and
to be married and
1120
get
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
longer
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
under the
down
was
felt
22
They
exist
home
sex couples
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
23
amongst
friends
24
rest
and family
Plaintiff
in their
for almost 30 years
They want to get
and by
church
their
Education Fund
Basic Rights
organization
dedicated to education about and advocacy
ensure that
lesbian
all
legally
Basic Rights
Basic Rights
have raised a family
married in Oregon
minister
Basic Rights
organization
bisexual
They
is
is
a not
for profit
a statewide civil
rights
gay
mission statement provides
that
it
will
gay bisexual and transgender Oregonians experience equality by building
a broad and inclusive politically
movement
powerful
shifting
and achieving
public opinion
policy victories
25
Basic Rights
same sex couples
state
recognition
in
Oregon
In 2004
marriage statute
Oregon
The County
marriage statute
to same sex couples
affiliate
entity
nine same
of same
sex couples
work
BRO
Basic Rights and
that
BRO
counsel
both concluded
Article I
section 20
Civil
that
licenses
Basic Rights
Liberties
that
helped to organize the campaign in opposition
state
Union and
exclusion
to Measure
recognition
of
was an
Basic Rights
challenged the validity of Measure 36 under the Oregon
was
not a
named
party in the suit
Basic Rights
1120
continues
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
that
Measure 36
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
Basic Rights
violates
to prohibit
although
was amended
a declaratory
Constitution
the State Registrar refused to register the licenses
filed
organizing
When
legal
unconstitutional
marriages
to
was
its
Basic Rights
Basic Rights Oregon
Later that year
36
and
advocating
of marriage
in
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
26
constituents
exclusion
and Basic Rights
The
exclusion
gay men
of same
of same
and bisexuals are
to diminished
entitled
disproportionately impacts
children
and
living in
poverty
work
respect and
inferior
who
further isolating
homophobia
for Basic Rights
As
the message
and advocate
to innovate
same sex couples
communities
and transphobia
of same
by the
ORS
106 300
expenditure
the public
what
of same
institution
sex couples
including
rights
Domestic
sex couples
significant
Basic Rights
to convene
Basic Rights
of
Raising
required a
confusion
about the status
about what domestic partnerships are and
For instance
participated
Basic Rights
created a
to re write forms and state
sex couples
who have been
1120
subject to unequal
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
rights
also regularly fields inquiries about Oregon domestic
partnerships and assists same
AMENDED COMPLAINT
had
must expend resources educating
Partnership Resource Guide to educate
In addition
and
Basic Rights
Basic Rights
websites
same
Basic Rights
mechanism to ensure
inferior
of resources by
the
and bisexuals
for an alternative
in
significant
rights
This creates
lesbians
about and promoting the passage of this legislation
and
already experiencing
awareness
The Oregon
This exclusion
rights
inasmuch as Basic Rights must organize
conveyed
of inequality
that
community to promote the equal dignity of gay men
resist
an impression
less
people of color
the impacts of systemic racism
additional
both Basic Rights
For instance
itself
lesbians
community
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
treatment
in violation
the expenditure
The
exclusion
of the Oregon Family Fairness Act
resources by
of significant
of same
Due
marriages
identification
of
whom
documents
Basic Rights
relationship
rights
right
confront
uncertainty
transgender
to lesbian
gay
bisexual
and advocacy
other critical
relationship
in
Oregonians seeking
of same sex couples to marry in Oregon
importance
engage
who
work
is
that
For instance
nearly five years after the law s passage
are
still
not in compliance
freedom to marry
in
Oregon
it
requires
capacity and resources available to Basic Rights
s ability
Basic Rights worked
priority
of gay and transgender youth being bullied
districts
their
of such fundamental
and
especially
with the law
all
in light
If
third
the
students in
of
committing suicide
more than one
to
to advance
Oregon Safe Schools Act of 2009 to create a safe environment for
Oregon
and
vulnerable
The
require
Basic Rights
recognition
many
efforts
relationships
Thes e
incidents
Nonetheless
of Oregon
school
same sex couples had the
Basic Rights could devote significantly
more
Defendants
27
of Oregon
He
the State s laws
10
is
vested
is
sued
in his offic
ial
including
the marriage ban
AMENDED COMPLAINT
are faithfully
executed
Or Const
1120
art
that
10
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
of the state
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
Governor
Kitzhaber
and
his
agency
policies
employee
benefits
recognizing
agencies
relating
of the policies
programs
and regulation
ORS
marital status
commissions
including
for
how
US C
administrative
tax obligations
state
of which involve
all
Kitzhaber
appoints the heads of various
sex couples and
Kitzhaber
also has authority to remove from office
the obligations
of 42
Governor
including
may remove
to
he
sex couples to marry or to have their valid marriages from other jurisdictions
Governor
recognized
records
with responsibility for recognizing
of same
vital
branch
180 060 10
those appointees for various reasons
ability
of the executive
Governor
state
in
ing a failure to comply
includ
Kitzhaber
law
at
members of boards
with
is
all
complaint
28
General for the state of Oregon
include
enforcement
180 210
of the State s laws
She also has
ull
bureaus of their obligations
power to enforce obligations
tate
under the
including
the Attorney
ORS
of
all
ORS
180 220 1
180 220
180 060
commissions
Ms
to initiate
Rosenblum
and
She also has the
her ability
180 240
her duties
departments
ORS
the legal business
all
Constitution
US
capacity a
including
the interests of the State s citizens
her official
chief legal officer
created by the
sued
and control of
charge
to protect
As the
is
state
law
is
at
suit
all
29
Registrar
Center of Health
Woodward
11
Statistics
duties include directing
AMENDED COMPLAINT
is
sued
in
her official
and supervising the Center for Health
1120
Statistics
and
its
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Ms
State Registrar
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
system of
records
vital
directing
to the operation
furnishing
forms for the marriage
used
filed
ORS
432 405 1
with relevant
state
Ms Woodward
of state law at
30
ORS
the State
in
is
all
laws
432 405 2
and she
Ms Woodward
Walruff
County
Mr
Walruff
must comply with
exclude same
42
US C
is
sued
and control
state
law
through
in
their
marriages
maintaining
performing his duties
Mr
Walruff
if
respective
performed
not enjoined
as well as
32
Plaintiffs
under color of
12
all
state
at
all
rights
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Accordingly
employees
in
the relief
secured
their
direction
and
continue
will
requested herein
direc
tion
some
is
to
sought
or control
and agents
JURISDICTION
that
are responsible for
AND VENUE
C
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
to
participated
law of
records relating
g those laws
includin
III
levying and
is
law
state
Each Defendant
intentionally
irreparably
including
of these functions
injure Plaintiffs
all
in his official
solemnizing
Defendants
supervision
the State must be filed
enforcing
for marriage
31
in
responsible for
Mr
is
persons
marriage records that have been
including
all
She
collecting
432 030
is
of
activities
e and application
marriage certificat
license
for Multnomah
ORS
pertaining
license
and controlling the
supervising
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
33
This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant
US C
to 28
in
controversy
arise
34
Venue
is
official
claims took
Plaintiffs
35
place
1391 b
Procedure
and 28
and
and
part of the events
substantial
all
because
Defendants
gave
that
rise
to the
relief
pursuant
to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of
2201 and 2202
the State
STATEMENT OF FACTS
IV
Plaintiff
37
challenges
couples
Plaintiff
of family
members who
life
freely
Eligibility
to
Marry
who
co
may marry
and nurture
their families
their
Plaintiffs
children
status
of marriage
enforcement
The
the rest of the political
and
security
legal
38
and Ben
State s exclusion
of that exclusion
protections
fact that
and Lisa and Chris
in this
families
through
of Plaintiffs
subjects Plaintiffs
afforded
State
AMENDED COMPLAINT
is
and other community
contributing
citizens
from marriage
their
support
dignity
celebrated
and Defendants
second
class
status relative
children of equal
to
dignity
to other Oregon families
to marry under the
over the age of 17
fully
competent
1120
couples
laws of the Oregon
and
is
Paul
and
not precluded
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
who
to an inferior
Each
workers
productive
But for the
wish to marry
are
and respect afforded by the State to other
13
36
in
in
and because a
Civil
offices
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
from marriage as a
willing
fee
to provide
result
of having another spouse
They are
the requisite inf ormation to receive a marriage license and to pay the required
of marriage
responsibilities

39
In 2004
subdivisions
recognized
that
40
leveraging
submitted
Or Const
art
15
is
man and one woman
as marriage
It
voters approved
shall
be
Measure 36 an
and
its
political
or legally
valid
5a
men and
in
For instance
lesbians
the statewid
its
passage by
proponents
Pamphlet regarding
e Voters
Measure 36
If
we
forced
to place
Schools
the
foster
and society
will
of same
equality
the state will be
marriage
children in same
sex households
sex marriage
the importance
experimentation
It
will
and increase
neither emotionally
is
To
radically
and fundamentall
marriage to include
to reject
children
God
what
purpose
and a nation
standing to unnatural
and
irreversible
Vote
Meant
YES
on
to
Be
it
more than
just
God
in
y change
the definition of
considers an
marriage for
Providing
relationships
abomination
is
men women
equivalent legal
will
force devastating
Measure
36
Because
It
the
Way Nature
woman is
about a loving
relationship
it
also about
the laws of nature
MYTH
Homosexuals

the
protections
suffer
of marriage
REALITY
Many
of
to same sex couples through
arrangements
14
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
Same
sex marriage
on children
It
want to
it
is
of any sex
polyamory
their
s civil
sic
For example
rights
sister
mother or
brother
And
two
not
it
no
father

spouses
had proven same sex
should not also be
marriage
anyone
violate
considered
Also
of
they
difficult
polygamy or
one can marry
having
individuals
marriage as between one female and one male
Defining
does not
41
two
able to marry simply because
sic
able to join in group
If
the same sex be
a vast
is
intentionally
is
relationships
The Oregon
42
marriage
statute
provides
that
arriage
is
a civil
contract
Numerous
106 010
106 150 1
and wife
Similarly
under
ORS
106 041 1
43
the Oregon
legislature
legislative
that
is
between these two
legally
recognized
AMENDED COMPLAINT
to
join
legal
protections
ORS
not a marriage
recognize
relationships
The
and obligations
issued
as
106 300
ORS
The
Family Fairness Act
106 305 7
In fact
hat numerous distinctions
Legislative
which
of marriag e by
the
will exist
Assembly recognizes
1120
that
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
together
states
the license
provides
creating
In 2008
in
ORS
For instance
the authorization
conducting
husband
and wife
entered
ORS
15
sex
parents
clearly
studies
that scientific
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
On
44
and cannot impact
this state
June 26 2013
United
in

federal government
On
45
Chief Operating
that
from respecting the
October 17 2013
marriages of same
46
likely
denial of such respect
the opinion
compelling
state interest
recognition
in
acknowledge
in
in
Oregon
in
marriages
we
letter
that
would pass
rational basis
Barring same
of
to the
letter
letter states
respect the
ame
muster even
the
much
in
less
Oregon contain one
and no
sex relationships
To
would
injury
result
are given legal
defend a refusal to
and again
at
that
States Constitution
continues
Measure 36
but concluded
sex couples
under the United
that
we
Same
Inflicts
that
different
Profound
Harm
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
sex couples from marriage disqualifies them from critically
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
review
16
may

on Plaintiffs
47
the State
constitutional
That
partnerships but refusing to recognize marriages
interest
the
other states
the Deputy
The
2013
sex couples
the marriages
Id
benefit
2675
of state marriages
noted that
letter
133 S Ct
of Marriage Act
the Deputy
would be unconstitutional
no
Windsor
Specifically
of each sex
letter
not be effective
marriages of same
valid
who marry
sex couples
In the opinion
from recognizing
Defense
generally respects out
barred recognition
partner
States
because Oregon
restrictions
may
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
and to safeguard
By way
their families
of example only
same
sex
couples are denied
The
ability
The
ceremonies
hrough
state
deprives same
that
sanctioned marriage
come
automatically
sex
with state
sanctioned marriage
The
to safeguard family resources under an
ability
spousal finances
for example
including
the exemption
the other s employment
through
array of laws that protect
that
and the exemption or
of federal taxes
deferral
on
the property of certain elderly or disabled residents
Code and
for virtually
all
pur poses throughout
Social Security
financial
48
and
local
Many
housing
relating
taxes
United
Michael Jordan
outside Oregon
governments
responsibilities
contingent
on
Thus
of marriage
entities
this directive
to marriage
including
laws pertaining
resources
way
of example only
17
AMENDED COMPLAINT
same
Mr
sex couples
state
agencies
of
to recognize
all
marriages
Jordan s directive
may be
whether government
is
or private
By
denied
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
causing
not bound by
to
and veterans
copyright
drain fami ly economic
has directed
married same
States
criminal sanctions
entire
performed
span the
recognition
benefits
that
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
to
ability
make
make
caretaking decisions in
priority
to
petition
a circuit court
and the automatic
for an autopsy
and
right
priority
to
and
times of death
the automatic
make
spouse
the ability
to
right
anatomical
including
disaster
gifts
of a decedent
body
The
assured privacy
The
right
deceased
room
to inheritance
spouse
determination
in
end of
each other
to support
ability
with a spouse
life
circumstances
rights in
of the estate
an individual
if
in
is
a nursing
home
share in a
the family residence pending final
and other survivor
survivor benefits for a spouse
home and
if
s estate
such as being
including
benefits
killed
for exa mple
while
performing firefighting duties
In the event
that
a couple separates
and assuring an equitable div
ision
process for
of the couple
assets and debts
49
Oregon law
protections
While
eligible
of marriage
to marriage
and do not
offer
ineligible
full
For example
the
for virtually
all
otherwise
will
be
to validly
available
married couples
may
recognize
18
respected
AMENDED COMPLAINT
in
Oregon who
travel
apart from marriage
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
to other states
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
50
recognition
social
of marriage
by invoking
that
Plaintiffs
permanence of
their
their
particular
marry
Civil
harms to same
that
By
denying same
in social
their familial relationship
of crisis
families
support
understand
as other families
The
and a
familiar
sex couples
equally deserving of the
sex couples
live
with the ever
legal
way
public
of demonstrating
that
policy
including
Same
sex
educational
and medical
settings
and not
entitled
and
in
interest
to justify
family
a powerful teacher
of discrimina
own
children
and
all
By
tion to others
persons with
1120
decreeing
of marriage and
whom
same
sex couples
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
in
AMENDED COMPLAINT
and
may
on the playground
those couples
the
is
who
offering parents and children
interact
when
The government
53
enforcing
spouses
that
of marriage
including
19
way
undeserving
same sex couples
that
same
and likewise
other
in
who are
different
question
unit
commitment as others do simply
must
52
that
couples and their children accordingly
moments
children
parent child bonds
legal
and meaningful than those of
enduring
to communicate
the family bonds that tie same
that
or adequately
sex couples
and legitimacy
view
fs
means to secure
critical
Without
permanence
stability
marriage conveys
Plaintif
married status
The
51
include
In addition
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
others
Bearing
marriage ban
and Defendants
are unfit for the dignity
encourages
enforcement
respect
of
Many
communicates a view
others to follow the government
54
it
example
sex couples
and
this
family
same
sex couples
different
in
that
of marital statu s in defining
often resulting
the exclusion
in
sex couples and their children from important safety nets such as private employer
The
committed
other
if
major arenas of
in
life
The
State
Related
their
ways
that
to same
Exclusion of
to a Legitimate
State and
less likely
No
55
schools
Same
Governmental
Purpose
Not Even
is
Tailored
it
marriages of same
continue
interest
sex couples
same
may marry
in
rights
Oregon
20
An
sex couples
exclusion
life
partner
upon
nor
is
individual
that
individual
there even a
and
status
that
Different
sex spouses
will
conferred by marriage regardless of whether same
unimpaired
that this
1120
freedom belongs
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
men
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
to
to exclude same
exists
does not depend
sex couples does
to enjoy the
Related
to a Compelling
on such bases
provides
The Deputy
56
relationship
protections
Rationally
Purpose
to establish a loving and e nduring
sexual orientation
and
sex couples
sex couples from the historic and highly venerated institution of marriage
capacity
businesses
to occur and more readily corrected

Governmental
provided
Defendants also encourage disrespect of
would be
of same
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
57
Because
protections
associated
sex couples
many
sex couples
denying same
but not
registration
of the legal
all
and now respects
to secure
interest
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Deprivation
US
58
Plaintiffs
as though
complaint
59
Plaintiffs
set
pursuant
to 42
state this
and
injunctive
Fourteenth
Amendment
provides
1983
life
The
in this
liberty interests
Defendants
all
this
capacities
deprive
section
5A ORS
sex couples violate
enforceable
any person of
life
liberty
or
106 010
and
all
other sources
Amendment
62
one
state shall
States Constitution
S Const amend XIV
Fourteenth
no
61
of the paragraphs of
all
relief
to the United
that
property
Process
The
S
Due
Amend XIV
forth herein
60
of
incorporate
fully
Const
right
protected
and to
restriction
is
direct
the course of
including
Plaintiffs
interfering
with a core
life
this right
altering
for
and
The Due
63
autonomy
including
each individual
s rights
choices
central
21
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Defendants
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
personal
them from obtaining
dignity
liberty
full
regarding family
their
and preclude
life
families
and
their
children
As
64
of the executive
policies
tax obligations
professions
as well as their
Plaintiffs
As
65
autonomy
Amendment
As
including
family integrity
to the United
66
marriage licenses
that
Plaintiffs
prohibit same
dignity
Amendment
As
67
register
autonomy
vio late the fundamental right to marry of
as well as their
constitutional
rights
Defendant Woodward
marriage licenses
for example
of same
including
family integrity
sex couples
Plaintiffs
association
Bride
violate
and a
the fundamental
as well as their
constitutional
County Defendant Walruff
Plaintiffs
violate
as well as
the fundamental right to marry
rights
protected
duties and
for example
of lesbian
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
forms for
furnishing
States Constitution
including
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
to liberty
and gay Oregonians
States Constitution
to the United
denying same
including
family integrity
to the United
records
States Constitution
to liberty
vital
autonomy
dignity
Defendant Rosenblum
association
the State Registrar
and refusing to
Fourteenth
22
to liberty
compliance
rights
and regulation
the marriage ban
including
right
rights
with state law
compliance
Groom
right
constitutional
for example
programs
association
dignity
benefits
the fundamental
violate
those taken
branch relating to
employee
state
including
Defendant Kitz haber
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
Amendment
to the United
and due process of Paul and Ben
association
68
and
and due process
liberty
Plaintiffs
69
interests
with a fundamental
the burden
is
right
is
Plaintiffs
as though
71
Plaintiffs
set
pursuant
jurisdiction
tailored
state this
and
injunctive
provides
1983
that
23
no
Moreover
all
AMENDED COMPLAINT
States Constitution
S Const amend XIV
section
5A ORS
section
5A
them out of the
their
enforceable
106 010
behalf
in
and
all
other sources
of their
Amendment both
facially
and
political
The conduct
process and making
it
Perkins Coie
1120
Couch Street
Phone
Fax
OR
of
uniquely
Portland
LEGAL29023055
its
on
capacities
to secure legislation
state shall
of the laws
difficult
all
relief
to the United
more
equal protection
governmental
that
Amend XIV
Amendment
marriages violate
may be
of Equal Protection
Const
73
US
Fourteenth
by
forth herein
amendment
Due
or liberty interest
The
to 42
and association
72
marry
fundamental right to
integrity
Deprivation
incorporate
fully
family integrity
the most intimate sphere of their lives
in
not even
VI
complaint
and family
as the marriage ban
70
autonomy
dignity
and Lisa and Chris
autonomy
interference
interest
in
determination
self
to liberty
Defendants
penalizing
that
States Constitution
these
LLP
Tenth Floor
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
laws violates
including
As
74
executive
including
branch relating
state
professions
violate
for example
to
employee
obligations
those taken
benefits
Plaintiffs
As
75
with state law
compliance
As
compliance
Groom
that
As
of Paul and
children
as second
24
their
to the United
own
States Constitution
the constitutional
violate
Defendant Woodward
for example
furnishing
all
of same
marriage licenses
sex couples
including
violate
and a
the
to equal treatment
Plaintiffs
County Defendant Wal
the constitutional
violate
forms for
Bride
ruff
duties and
ban by for example
rights
to equal treatment
and Defendants
and deprives
their families
citizens
through
a message
children
all
of a critical
of government
persons with
is
less
denies
it
sam e
as well as their
imposed stigma and
whom
same
fosters
worthy than others
1120
sex
marriage ban brands lesbians
class
actions to enforce
The
State s
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
of
Lisa and Chris
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
rights
including
tax
to equal treatment
Plaintiffs
The
of the
without regard to sexual
with the State s discriminatory marriage
responsibilities
policies
Defendant Rosenblum
The
78
Amendment
Ben and
records
vital
to eq ual treatment
discriminatory marriage ban by
register
denying same
rights
rights
77
prohibit same
and refusing to
constitutional
including
the State Registrar
with the State
marriage licenses
and regulation
including the marriage ban
76
constitutional
or sex under the Fourteenth
orientation
programs
by
and sex
Defendant Kitzhaber
enforce Measure 36
to equal protection
Plaintiffs
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
gay men
couples in
Same
all
Same
80
sex couples
Like different
faced
to different
make
same sex couples
sex couples
Plaintiffs
82
Like
fall
in
love
Like different
plan
same sex
sex couples
legal shelter
some
Plaintiffs
responsibilities
different
romantic
sex couples
and
their
some same
and d
ignitary
reasons
sex spouses
dignity
and legitimacy
that
access to marriage confers on
different
couples
the tangible resources and societal esteem that access to marriage confers
precious
than for children
of different
sex
is
no
less
sex couples
The
84
facially
from
both
and as applied
The
85
subjects Defendants
cannot withstand
25
sex
together
83
sex
81
children
toward lesbians
when
antipathy
futures together
their
and
and bisexuals
79
couples
exclusion
of Plaintiffs
conduct to
strict
their
AMENDED COMPLAINT
sexual orient
which Defendants
conduct
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
ation
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
interests
let
an adequately
86
gay men
Sexual orientation
a person
that
as a condition
89
or safe
professional
virtually
is
may
a core
defining
trait
that
to abandon
even
it
if
s identity
that
were
of equal treatment
No
generally
credible evidence
is
supports
the notion
organization
that
attempt
that
No
indeed
such interventions
are either
to change
of them hav e adopted policy statements cautioning
all
is
not legitimately b e required
Sexual orientation
intervention
effective
to perform in or
s ability
to society
and conscience
through
States
Sexual orientation bears no relation to an individual
88
possible
it
contribute
nor d oes
manner
tailored
Lesbians
87
interests
and
sexual orientation
and the public
professionals
90
prejudice
that
Lesbians
gay men
might
ordinarily
protections
at
be
Lesbians
half
democratic
gay men
Gay
the states
bodies
are systematically
right
AMENDED COMPLAINT
women
in
at
had when race
and
against
the federal level a
30
state
and
nd
in
local
and have been
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
rights
respectively
federal
to marry through
processes
and housing
in
and ongoing
minority
of those political
and quasi suspect
underrepresented
insular
26
operation
were declared to be suspect
more than
seriously to curtail the
91
relied
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
92
and as applied
solely
because
93
devoted
Chris
barring Plaintiffs
each of the
Because
Similarly
woman
The
94
perpetuating
recognized
men
Paul
of sex
validly
wishes to marry a
is
is
precluded
woman
women
that
no
The
96
preclud
ed from marrying her
Given
is
is
married
is
man and
not a
woman
should marry
there
Lisa
both facially
of the same sex
partner
and wives
life
95
against Plaintiffs
on the
basis
Plaintiffs
partner because she
life
were Paul a
that
and
those couples
women
for the sex based
exclusion
of Plaintiffs
fail
should marry
there are no longer
basis
to conform
to sex based stereotypes
requirements
of gender based stereotypes cannot survive
or from being
men
legal distinctions
eligibility
and
for marriage
their
the heightened scrutiny
required
for sex
based
discrimination
by
the
97
Due
Process Clause
The
sexual orientation
their
27
in
dignity
autonomy
sexual orientation and sex
scrutiny
treatment
against
which Defendants
and family
integrity
subjects Defendants
right
and association
rights
conduct to
and
Differential
liberty interests
strict
based on
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
1
to marry and
AMENDED COMPLAINT
LEGAL29023055
based on
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
28
US C
98
2201 and 2202
99
fully
the issuance
irreparable
law or
in
subjecting
to Plaintiffs
identified
of marriage through
Oregon
present and ongoing
warranting
enjoining
for which
herein
same sex couples
in
Defendants
have no adequate
Plaintiffs
remedy
equity
101
protections
because
judgment
favorable decision
injuries
to Plaintiffs
of a declaratory
100
all
forth herein
at
set
Rules 57 and 65
incorporate
Plaintiffs
as though
complaint
DECLARATORY
VII
The
State will incur
and respects out
but not
rights
of the
sex couples to marry
ffs
all
to no burden in allowing same
little
Plainti
some
The
severe
is
balance
of hardships
VIII
WHEREFORE
A
Plaintiffs
Declaring
rights
Amendment
Article 15
request that
section
5A
his
States Constitution
by the State and
its
and
subdivisions
further
including
of Article 15
Defendants
that
section
Declaring
unconstitutional
privileges
28
that
respectfully
to the United
bars enforcement
5A
Plaintiffs
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
that
ORS
106 010
insofar as they deny same
responsibilities
obligations
AMENDED COMPLAINT
ORS
106 041 1
sex couples
full
and
ORS
106 150 1
rights
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
are
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
C
93 180 1
Oregon
Declaring
ORS
that
ORS
108 020
statutes referring
ORS
to
40 135 1
ORS
108 040 1
husband
ORS
and wife
ORS
ORS
136 655 1
full
40 255 1
rights
privileges
ORS
59 350 1
314 105 2
and
all
other
but only insofar as they
obligations
responsibilities
Issuing a permanent injunction
must
Defendants
privileges
in
Requiring
marriage licenses
register
the State and
respects grant to same sex couples
all
obligations
responsibilities
that
the State and
for same
and immunities of
its
subdivisions
sex couples
full
its
subdivisions
including
different
including
rights
sex couples
Defendants
to issue and
pursuant to the same restrictions
and
limitations
sex couples
Recognizing
jurisdiction
E
to
inter
Awarding
alia 42
29
US C
Granting
Plaintiffs
their
costs
expenses
AMENDED COMPLAINT
relief
and
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
fees pursuant
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
The
each Defendant
declaratory
and
injunctive
relief
s officers
persons acting in active concert or participation
supervision
DATED
direction
January
employees
and agents
with any Defendant
is
sought against
and against
all
or control
2014
Thomas
Kristina J
OSB No
Johnson
TRJohnson
010645
com
perkinscoie
Holm OSB No
112607

MIsaak
perkinscoie com
Perkins Coie LLP
Telephone
503 727 2000
OSB No
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
Johnson Johnson
Telephone
KDiaz
of Oregon
OSB No
Foundation
aclu
Telephone
PC
Foundation
Kevin Daz
ACLU
Schaller
541 683 2506
Cooperating
ACLU
071510
com
Inc
970480
of Oregon
Inc
or org
503 227 6928
RSaxe
aclu org
Telephone
212 549 2627
Amanda Goad
AGoad
Telephone
American
pro hac vice
aclu org
213 977 5244

Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
30
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1120
LLP
Perkins Coie
Portland
LEGAL29023055
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2000

503 727 2222
From
To
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
H
Perkins Coie
CC
Johnson
Sent
1 17 2014 12 12 43
Subject
RE
Thanks
Yes
From
Isaak
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Subject
can
Sheila
17
Modified
Thank
Coie
2014
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Prayer for Relief
you so much
mailto
misaak
for working
perkinscoie
with me on this
com
12 06 PM
Thomas
Rummell
with this
Perkins
January
Perkins Coie
Jr
PM
Rummell complaint
live
Misha
Thomas
Jr
complaint
Perkins
Coie
Modified
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Prayer for Relief
Sheila
I
think
we
by phone
re there
yesterday
We
modified
Please
take
the
Prayer for Relief
a look
to
see if
it
to
fit
the
accommodates
concept
discussed
with you
your concern
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Couch
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
FAX
503
503
E MAIL
IRS
346
CIRCULAR
Perkins
LLP
4128
2086
2086
misaak
regulations
contained
97209
727
Coie
Street
perkinscoie
230
we
DISCLOSURE
com mailto
To
inform you that
Coie
LLP
to
be used
and
misaak
ensure
unless
compliance
com
expressly indicated
including
cannot
perkinscoie
any attachments
be used
by the
otherwise
is
not
taxpayer
and
IRS
any federal
intended
for the
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue
Code or
promoting
to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein
or any attachments
NOTICE
This communication
have received it
in error
message
ii
and
any attachments
may contain privileged or other confidential

information
If you
without
copying
or disclosing
the
contents
Thank
you
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Johnson
Sent
1 17 2014 1 46 34
Subject
RE
Thomas
Coie
R Jr
PM
Perkins Coie
Rummell complaint
Modified
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
Prayer for Relief
Thank you
Excellent
Misha
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Potter
Sent
Sheila
To
Isaak
Cc
Johnson
mailto sheila
January 17
Friday
Misha
Perkins
Thomas R
Coie
Jr
RE Rummell complaint
Thanks
Yes
From
Isaak
Sent
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Subject
Perkins
January 17
Sheila
Coie
Jennifer
Modified
Middleton
JMiddleton
mailto
jjlslaw
com
Prayer for Relief
Thank you so much
can live with this
Misha
Friday
Coie
Perkins
Subject
doj state or us
potter
2014 12 13 PM
misaak
for
me on
working with
this
com
perkinscoie
2014 12 06 PM
Thomas R
Jr
Rummell complaint
Perkins
Coie
Modified
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Prayer for Relief
Sheila
we
think
re there
look to see
if
it
We
modified the Prayer for Relief to
accommodates
fit
the concept discussed with you by phone yesterday
Please take a
your concern
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
IRS CIRCULAR
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
1 21 2014
Subject
tomorrow
Want
to catch
a ride with
VON TER STEGGE

H
5 49 50 AM
Sheila
me
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
1 21 2014
Subject
Re
Thanks
m actually
H
VON TER STEGGE
8 46 43 AM
Sheila
tomorrow
going
to
be going
from the
Salem
office
or I
would
on this
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jan 21
katevts
Want
to
Kate
von
2014
at
Justice
5 50 AM
multco us mailto
catch
Ter
Katharine
katevts
VON TER
STEGGE
multco us
wrote
Multnomah
County
a ride with me
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
of
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Portland
OR
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
happily take
you up
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 21 2014 5 20 20
Subject
is
Notice
there
recipient
for
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
including
avoiding
recommending
this
notified
that
it
in
Rummel
yet
may
any attachments
individual
Notice 2
PM
including
specific
and are hereby
attachments
an amended complaint
This communication
intended
Sheila
and purpose
communication
and
is strictly
IRS regulations
we
any attachments
party
is
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the

distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
not intended
to
to another
contain
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
The Rummel
also said they
Lea Ann
highly competent
d send us a copy
and
of
efficient
it
lawyers told
haven
seen
it
me
yet
that they were going
Have
they filed
one
to
file
Hi Sheila
an amended
complaint
They
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 21 2014 5 21 14
Subject
RE
There
isn t
From
Lea
Sent
Tuesday
To
Ann
Potter
Subject
This
21
PM
an amended
that
mailto
January
there
there
noticing
Easton
Sheila
is
Notice
was
is
too
an amended
communication
including
are not
intended
recipient
and
any attachments
of
on one
dorsayindianlaw
complaint
for a specific
distribution
yet
but
they
haven
filed
it
com
intended
materials
agreed
Rummel
5 20 PM
information
the
We
LEaston
2014
complaint in
in Rummel
yet
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
and
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
party
any U S
is
not
under
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
herein
Hi Sheila
The
Rummel
amended
they
Lea
filed
Ann
highly
complaint
one
competent
They
and
efficient
also said they
lawyers
d send
told
us a copy
me that
of
it
they
I
were
haven
going
seen
to
it
file
yet
or
addressed
an
Have
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
TRJohnson
Sent
1 21 2014 5 23 35
Subject
Amended
haven
seen
it
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
PM
Complaint
did you file
it
yet
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Justice

Portland
OR 97201
Suite
Phone
FAX
971
Coie
perkinscoie
673
1880
410
971
673
5000
misaak
com
perkinscoie
com
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
1 21 2014 5 44 54
Subject
RE
No we
plan to
in
file
Coie
Thomas
Johnson
Jr
Perkins
Coie
PM
Amended Complaint
the morning
had planned
to
today but time has gottenaway from
file
me
Sorry about that
Misha
Misha Isaak
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Tuesday
Isaak
haven
Sheila
mailto sheila
Perkins
seen
Coie
SW
Portland
Trial
OR
yet
FAX 971 673 5000
may
please advise
the message
NOTICE
e mail in error
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
you have received
that
idential
this
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

or written
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
any transaction
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
it
97201
If
advise
Coie
Suite 410
applicable law
NOTICE
Perkins
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
This e mail
party
Jr
Counsel
CONFIDENTIALITY
that
Thomas R
Potter
971 673 1880
intended
Johnson
did you le
it
Oregon Department
Phone
doj state or us
Amended Complaint
Deputy Chief
1515
potter
2014 5 24 PM
January 21
Misha
Subject
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
To
H
Perkins Coie
Sent
1 21 2014 5 45 39
Subject
RE
No
PM
Amended Complaint
problem
From
Isaak
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Subject
Misha
Sheila
RE
No
we
me
Sorry
Perkins
January
H
to
file
about
Coie
2014
Johnson
Amended
plan
21
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
5 45 PM
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Complaint
in the
morning
had
planned
to
file
today
but
time has gotten
away
from
that
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Potter
Sent
Tuesday
To
Isaak
Subject
I
Sheila
Misha
seen
it
Chief
Oregon
Department
OR
971
of
673
Coie
Suite
1880
under
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
it
yet
attachments
FAX
971
673
information
the
law
If
received
contents
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
5000
NOTICE
you have
keep
regulations
contained
410
applicable
that
reply e mail
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
or us
97201
or otherwise
have
doj state
Justice
e mail may contain
Perkins
potter
5 24 PM
Trial Counsel
Fifth Avenue
disclosure
IRS
sheila
2014
did you file
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
21
Potter
Portland
Phone
mailto
Perkins
Deputy
SW
LLP
Complaint
Sheila
1515
January
Amended
haven
Coie
2086
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 21 2014 7 47 43
Subject
FW
From
Isaak
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Subject
Misha
No
we
me
Sorry
Perkins
H
to
file
about
21
PM
Complaint
Coie
2014
Johnson
Amended
plan
Amended
January
Sheila
RE
Sheila
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
5 45 PM
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Complaint
in the
morning
had
planned
to
file
today
but
time has gotten
away
from
that
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Potter
Sent
Tuesday
To
Isaak
Subject
I
Sheila
Misha
seen
it
Chief
Oregon
Department
OR
971
of
673
Coie
Suite
1880
under
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
it
yet
attachments
FAX
971
673
information
the
law
If
received
contents
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
5000
NOTICE
you have
keep
regulations
contained
410
applicable
that
reply e mail
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
or us
97201
or otherwise
have
doj state
Justice
e mail may contain
Perkins
potter
5 24 PM
Trial Counsel
Fifth Avenue
disclosure
IRS
sheila
2014
did you file
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
21
Potter
Portland
Phone
mailto
Perkins
Deputy
SW
LLP
Complaint
Sheila
1515
January
Amended
haven
Coie
2086
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Johnson
Thomas
JMiddleton
kdiaz
Coie
multco us
katevts
com
jjlslaw
lake
Rose Saxe
law works
Holm
Perkins Coie
Jr
rsaxe
Kristina
com
J
aclu org
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
Kevin
Diaz
Jennifer Middleton
kdiaz
aclu or org
aclu or org
AM
Sent
1 22 2014 10 22 23
Subject
Rummell v Kitzhaber
Attachments
COMPARE
Amended Complaint
Rummell Amended
Complaint pdf
Counsel
We
just
an amended
filed
complaint in the Rummell action
the State about the specificity

complaint to show
none
all
let
me
our prayer for
know
if
relief
The purpose
of this amendment
For your convenience
changes from the original complaint
have changed
of allegations
Please
of
As you
see
will
attached
here
we havemade
is
to
is
address a concern
redline
version
only a few technical
of
raised
by
the amended
changes
but
substantively
you have any questions
about this
Best regards
Misha Isaak
Counsel
for
Rummell West
Misha Isaak
1120
Chickadonz
Tanner
and Basic Rights Education Fund
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
IRS CIRCULAR
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
Thomas R Johnson OSB No 010645

Kristina J Holm OSB No 112607
KJHolmperkinscoie com
PERKINS COIE LLP
NW
Couch Street Tenth

1120
Telephone
Kevin Daz
OSB No
970480
KDiaz aclu or org

P O Box
40585
Portland
OR
Telephone
97240
503.227.6928
Floor
Rose Saxe
RSaxe
503.727.2000
pro hac vice
aclu org
Amanda Goad
pro hac vice
AGoad aclu org

Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
No
OSB
JOHNSON JOHNSON
SCHALLER
OR
Telephone
PC
LIBERTIES
UNION
New York
Eugene
AMERICAN CIVIL
FOUNDATION
071510
jjlslaw com
NY
10004
97401
541.683.2506
Cooperating
ACLU
to
be submitted

DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
No
6 13 cv 02256 TC

AMENDED
Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY
AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 AMENDED
Pursuant to 42
COMPLAINT
U SC
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
1983
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
as Governor
ROSENBLUM
in
his official
Oregon ELLEN
of
in her official capacity
her official
Health
capacity
as Attorney
WOODWARD
General of Oregon JENNIFER
in
Statistics Oregon Health
RANDY WALDRUFF
in
Authority and
his official
capacity as
Defendants
Plaintiffs
Paul
Rummell and Benjamin West and
Tanner are two loving committed
not for profit
organization
42
U SC
1983
samesex
works
that
through
to
Amendment
and advocacy
and injunctive
to
Marriage plays a unique
Plaintiffs
Since
partnerships which
offer
role
from marrying as a
2 AMENDED
Yet
result
some
Plaintiffs
life
of
has allowed
state
rights
of
Oregon
together
It
and
confers
upon
of Oregon to different sex couples
samesex
and other committed
couples to enter into domestic
of marriage and provide
samesex
none of the
couples in Oregon are barred
was
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
to
formed committed enduring
of existing Oregon statutes and because
COMPLAINT
bring this action pursuant
state
is
bisexual and
in society as the universally recognized
commitment to build family
2008 Oregon
only
gay
Fund
relief
marry under the laws of the
marriage
and Christine
Plaintiff
couples a dignity and status of immense import Plaintiffs have
through
Lisa Chickadonz
to the United States Constitution caused by the exclusion
couples from the freedom
celebrated hallmark of a couples
couples
advance
education
seeking declaratory
same sex
INTRODUCTION
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
amended in 2004
to
marry based
single out lesbian and gay Oregonians
to
by excluding
solely on their sexual orientation and their
On
October
16 2013
the Deputy
sex
samesex
a legal opinion that the State could begin to respect the marriages of
married in other states because
Supreme Courts decision
in
refusing
United States
agencies
immediately
marriages of
samesex
couples to marry in
entities
like
to
do so would
to
Windsor
Oregon
The
be unconstitutional
next
day
Nevertheless
Mr
the State continues
Jordans
directive
to
the
after
the Chief Operating
of Administrative Services Michael
Further
exclusion
from marriage
For example
inflicts
Jordan directed
Oregon
all
state
including
refuse to allow
samesex
not other
commitment before
their
organization
Plaintiff
that
to
same sex
samesex
couples
to
publicly declare their love and
their
child
Fund
Basic
has a long history of public education
gay bisexual and

marriage for
that
samesex
family friends and community and to give one another and
security and protections
serious and irreparable harms upon
Paul and Ben are unmarried and wish
Plaintiffs
marry for the same reasons as different sex couples
exclude
The
who
couples
L B the
likely
recognize all marriages performed outside of
couples
them from the freedom
These
couples from marriage and
it
is
and advocacy
efforts
Basic Rights opposed
Rights
a statewide civil
rights
opposition to restrictions on
include
amending
is
active in ongoing
efforts to
repeal that
provision
Our
courts and our society have discarded one by
one
the Constitutions mandate of equality such as anti miscegenation
married
women
3 AMENDED
legal
independence and the
COMPLAINT
right to
make
decisions
marriage laws that violated
laws and laws
for themselves
denied
History has
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
that
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
taught us that the vitality
To
of marriage does not depend
the contrary eliminating these unconstitutional
Ending the exclusion
today in 17
institution
states
and the
Plaintiffs
of
District
Columbia samesex
to thrive
pursuant to 42
U SC
the States exclusion
and Oregon
Amendment
of
violates
statutes
law and
of the
samesex
Indeed as of
couples are marrying and the
means
to
secure their rights to
to eliminate the myriad serious harms inflicted
enforcement
of it
Accordingly
and injunctive
couples from marriage through
Plaintiffs
bring
on the grounds
relief
II
the institution
that
has enhanced
this suit
restrictions
of lesbian and gay couples from marriage is no different
of marriage continues
on maintaining such discriminatory laws
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
Paul
Portland Oregon
Rummell
Paul
age
Paul
43
is
and Benjamin West
Ben
a veteran of the United States Air Force
in
the past worked
Ben
the theatre arts and for the last nine years has been working in the renewable energy field
age
35
worked for twelve years
expects to complete
in
in
in
the financial services industry and is currently in a program he
Paul and Ben were born and raised in
Oregon and had religious upbringings
Paul and
walked
This
into
a pub
number
after
Ben met
some
Pride in
2006
Oklahoma where
down
courts have struck
Prior to entry of the stay
They
started
marriage
samesex
as
Ben
up a
bans
but
couples were
Utah
COMPLAINT
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
As soon
a Pride block party Paul was struck by his presence
are stayed pending appeal
permitted to marry in
4 AMENDED
Gay
friends because
excludes Utah and
those decisions
during
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
conversation
father because
it
was
Day
Fathers
kiss after walking around Portland
Their
fact that
first
for hours
Ben had
spent time earlier in the day with his
date the following
evening ended with a single
after
10
Paul and
Ben have combined
household they were denied a
income to qualify
However
low interest
their
veterans
they were unable to include
Ben
Fortunately Pauls employer provides
are concerned
sometime
In
like
2010
Paul and
ceremony
on August
to
21 2010
then Mayor Sam Adams

Pauls parents attended
Ben knew
if
Paul has to change
jobs
have a
civil
make
had been
home
dealt
was
5 AMENDED
of what
Ben
more
it
in
checks
a half
hand
foster
in
life
The ceremony
asked Portlands
the sanctity
represents
their
desire to be
parents to focus on helping
Paul and Ben completed
long term placements
all
of
in their
of three children
care for almost ten additional children
COMPLAINT
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
of marriage
necessary to begin caring for children
they had
took
legitimate Although
Paul and Ben were candid about
studies and background
respite
feel
raised to believe
marriage because
the course of about a year and
Paul and
the proceedings
Paul
Even
faiths they decided to hold a
respective
who
and provided
veterans interest
with family and friends present
to officiate to
to
their
children
In
the more favorable
they wanted to be committed to one another
home
they were not
to their medical coverage
fathers
the training
his income because
declare their love and commitment to each other
Bens declined
and he very much wants
12
Bens
include
domestic partner insurance benefits but Paul and
though they could not marry under Oregon law or
place
to
the future
in
11
wedding
at
as one
live
loan because they needed
married They ultimately did purchase a house but not
rate
Even though they
finances
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
13
Ben
placed with Paul and
for
him
very
low
L B a sixyear old
2012
In June of
L B. s history made
14
Paul and
to
Ben want
than anyone elses family
classmates because
and especially
officials
make
are a
they travel
to
They very much want
sure that
that their
professor
that
Oregon
of nursing
included
Chris have
16
work
in
couple and
in
and
66
waiting for the
in
a safe and stable
home
teased or bullied by his
about whether
by other people or government
Oregon
56
Christine Tanner
is
Chris are
currently
is
clinical research
semi retired and
a lesbian couple
is
an
assistant
has had a long career in nursing
teaching and administrative capacities
Both Lisa and
lived in Oregon for over 30 years
Lisa and Chris met in 1982 and began dating in
a family together
raise
home
now
the process
L B. s peers may not understand
be recognized
had a private commitment ceremony and exchanged
create
are
in
new family
Lisa age
Chris age
L B being
to be legally married in
Lisa and
Lisa Chickadonz
L B and
family is less worthy of dignity and respect
they are concerned
L B would
15
L B and
L B grows up
about
same sex
protections
decided to adopt
are concerned
Ben
relationship
their
to
from society
They
Paul and
When
relationship
him They
long term placement
be finalized
without the repeated message
their
the likelihood of finding a
Paul and Ben worked extensively
developed a deep parental love for
last
boy with serious behavioral issues was
in
to
The
COMPLAINT
they
Shortly thereafter they decided to
Katie
was born
perform second parent adoptions for each child so
The couple did what they could
to
come
that
as close
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
1986
6 AMENDED
In September
Lisa is the birth mother for their two children
1994
studies and related expenses
rings
1985
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
as possible to creating the same legal rights and responsibilities of married couples with respect
to
the two children
17
They
In addition
jointly
own
to
having raised
their
children together the couple shares everything
of their major assets and have
all
Again
legal
planned for retirement and the
they have
tried to
approximate
marry in Oregon
respective
These costs are ongoing
When
licenses to
samesex
to
spend
Doing
they could
if
issues about the couples
and health care directives
wills
18
wanted
and most recently involved
to
the
news broke
couples on
that
March
Multnomah County would

2004
begin to issue marriage
They had
be legally married for years and headed down to the county building the night before
Chris with a broken leg and a lawn chair stayed out
all
be together as a family While waiting
of marriage for
their
samesex
couples
19
that
celebration
Upon
And
family interacted
20
central
of
March
and with marriage
2004 by
The following
in line
in
certificate
in
hand
Lisa and
how meaningful
their
their arrival
fellow church
it
was
home from
members with whom
the wedding
both Lisa and Chris experienced
to
them and
to their
ceremony
their
a significant difference
neighbors
in
how
joined in the
their
extended
with them
Family members now understood what
part of their life
7 AMENDED
first
they were legally married Their love and commitment was acknowledged
and celebrated by
involvement
what a
Undaunted
community
all
night to be
were subjected to derogatory comments about homosexuality from opponents
line the children
respected
of
the same
Oregon
rights and responsibilities between each other that married couples enjoy in
so has cost them thousands of dollars they otherwise would not have had
possibility
it
COMPLAINT
represented
When
their
relationship meant to each other and
introducing
each other as a spouse
was
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
there
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
no question of the level of commitment
responsibilities to
able to
marry
the couple as any other married couple
in their
Oregon
their
of marriages for
marriage didnt exist
the State they called
say they were not
home
If
22
that
after their
36
rights
and
of their relationship by hanging their
marriage was invalidated by the Oregon
which amended the Oregon Constitution
same sex
now
couples
asked them
now
They
felt
to
awful that under the laws
if
by
they were married they would have
to
serves as a painful reminder of the fact that they
down
Chris considered
recognized
someone
it
same
Their love and commitment was no longer recognized
are not married so they took
the
home
Importantly the state of
Lisa and Chris memorialized the recognition
Supreme Court and the passage of Measure
of
relationship entailed
love and commitment by granting
their
framed marriage license
21
that
passed a domestic partnership
whether or not they should register
registering was not the
same
They knew what
law
was
it
in
to
2007
Lisa and
be married and
Lisa and Chris decided to wait until they could get
married again they wanted the real thing
23
and plan
to
Lisa and Chris have been together for almost 30 years
spend the
rest
amongst friends and family
24
Plaintiff
in their
church and by
organization
organization
about
ensure that all lesbian
8 AMENDED
gay
bisexual
COMPLAINT
They want
their
Fund
They have raised a family
to get legally married in
minister
Basic
Basic Rights
Rights
is
is
a statewide
and advocacy for equal
rights
not for profit

civil
rights
for lesbian
Basic Rights mission statement provides
gay
that
it
will
and transgender Oregonians experience equality by building
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
Oregon
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
a broad and inclusive
politically
powerful movement shifting public opinion and achieving
policy victories.
25
same sex
state
Basic Rights has been deeply involved
couples in
recognition
Oregon
2004
In
County Board of Commissioners and
marriage statute
to
same sex
affiliate
nine
was
When
couples
filed
year Basic Rights and
BRO
Constitution
samesex
work
to
constituents
The
exclusion
gay
exclusion
men
Measure
of
challenged
9 AMENDED
20
to
and living
COMPLAINT
in
exclusion
campaign Basic
of
Later
opposition to Measure 36
of
Rights was an
the validity of Measure 36 under the Oregon
in
the suit
Basic Rights continues
couples from marriage injures both Basic Rights
couples from marriage promotes an impression that
are less than equal
members
to diminished respect and inferior rights
in
poverty further
who
isolating
of the civic
This exclusion
communities already experiencing
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
that
the campaign
disproportionately impacts people of color
children
For instance
same sex
entitled
to
that
36
lesbians and bisexuals
community
Multnomah
along with the American Civil Liberties Union and
Article I section
same sex
itself
of
to prohibit
refused to register the licenses Basic Rights
After narrowly losing that
that
with the
marry for
counsel both concluded
and the County began
Basic Rights was not a named party
and Basic Rights
The
States legislative
helped to organize
couples
repeal or overturn
26
although
Basic Rights worked
amended the Oregon Constitution
that
was amended
a declaratory
organizing force behind a lawsuit
to
BRO
to
counsel to assess the constitutionality of Oregons
the State Registrar
couples from marriage violates
marriages for
legal
unconstitutional
entity Basic Rights Oregon
same sex
that
statute
couples
same sex
its
couples
The Countys counsel and the
Oregons marriage
for the freedom
advocating
samesex
of marriage for
in
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
racism homophobia and transphobia
the impacts of systemic
work
additional
for Basic Rights inasmuch
as Basic Rights must organize in the
community to promote the equal dignity of gay
As a
to
of the exclusion
result
and advocate
innovate
same sex
of
same sex
for an alternative inferior mechanism
about and promoting the passage of
The Oregon Family Fairness Act

rights
of
samesex
public including
couples
same sex
creates
Domestic
couples
institution
In addition
websites
Resource
Partnership
ORS
106.300
this legislation
significant confusion
about what domestic
Raising
required
convene
partnerships are and
Guide to educate people about the unfamiliar
to
about the status and
For instance Basic Rights created a
and
assists
same sex
couples
to
who have been
treatment in violation of the Oregon Family Fairness
re write
forms and state
exclusion
of
same sex
many
Due
identification
These
efforts
require
couples from marriage also imposes significant and
relationships
Act
subject to unequal
of significant resources by Basic Rights
the expenditure
of
whom
confront
who
uncertainty
about
to the complexity and cost of changing
documents
10 AMENDED COMPLAINT
the legal status of their
gender markers on legal
seeking relationship recognition
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
ensure rights of
Basic Rights also regularly fields inquiries about Oregon domestic
partnerships
marriages
to
Basic Rights must expend resources educating the
what rights they do and do not provide
The
laws
significant expenditure
lesbians and bisexuals and
couples from marriage Basic Rights had
couples the Oregon Family Fairness Act
awareness
men
the message of inequality conveyed by the States marriage
resist
This creates
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
leaving
Basic Rights expends resources advising
their
vulnerable
relationships
transgender people on their relationship
rights
The
of
right
importance
same sex
to
lesbian
couples to marry in Oregon is of such fundamental
gay
engage
in
other critical
work
Basic Rights worked
For instance
This has been an organizational priority especially
to
advance
nearly five years after the laws passage
are
freedom
to
still
not in compliance
the
for all students in
in light
of gay and transgender youth being bullied and committing suicide
districts
requires
This limits the organizations ability to
Oregon Safe Schools Act of 2009 to create a safe environment
Oregon
it
and resources available to Basic Rights
capacity
for public education and advocacy
that
of incidents
Nonetheless
more than
one third
of Oregon school
law
same sex
couples had the
with the
If
marry in Oregon Basic Rights could devote
significantly
more
Defendants
27
of
Oregon
He
is
laws
the States
Governor
vested
is
sued
ban
agencies
of the executive
marital status
ORS
180.060
vital
Or Const
art
that
1 10
branch including administrative
records tax obligations
10
Governor
all
of which
Kitzhaber appoints
with responsibility for recognizing the marriages of
same sex
state
involve
the heads of various
couples and
may remove
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
of the state
also bear the authority and responsibility for the
recognizing
executed
are faithfully
formulation and administration of the policies
relating
his official
with the chief executive power of the State and has the duty to see
Kitzhaber and his subordinates
agency policies
in
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
those appointees
samesex
of
ability
recognized
various reasons
for
Oregon
of
state
enforcement
As
of the States
She also has
180.210
ull
laws
enforce obligations
relevant
to this
29
of 42
system of
state
sued
in
including a failure to comply with
Kitzhaber is a person within the meaning of
law
at all
duties include
complaint
capacity as the Attorney
Oregon
ORS
her duties
180.060
such departments commissions and
ORS
1b
180.220
US
ORS
180.220 180.240
She also has the
her ability to initiate
Ms
Statistics
directing
is
sued
in
her official
and supervising
Rosenblum
state
law
is
at all
suit to
a person
times
license used in the State
432.405
ORS
and she
432.405
is
State
Registrar
ORS
Statistics
She
is
and application
its
responsible
for
for marriage
All marriages performed in the State must be filed
must ensure compliance
through
all
been
of these functions
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
and
of all persons
activities
432.030
Ms
responsible for registering marriage records that have
Ms Woodward
furnishing forms for the marriage license marriage certificate
ORS
to this
of all the legal business of all departments
records directing supervising and controlling the
pertaining to the operation
filed
times relevant
her official
U S Constitution
vital
remove from office members of boards
complaint
Registrar Center of Health
Woodwards
to
including advising
tate,
created by the
U SC
valid marriages from other jurisdictions
including the marriage exclusion
protect the interests of the States citizens
within the meaning
they administer laws relating to the
the chief legal officer of the state of
bureaus of their obligations under the
to
is
charge and control
power
their
Governor
General for the
how
bodies for misconduct
collegial
28
include
or to have
Governor Kitzhaber also has authority
the obligations
U SC
marry
couples to
commissions councils and
42
including for
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
with relevant
Ms
state
Woodward
is
laws
including those that currently exclude
of state law at all times relevant
30
for
to this
Mr
Waldruffs
Waldruff must comply with
samesex
U SC
is
sued
in
his official
duties include
issuing marriage licenses levying and
31
state
law in performing his duties including those laws
Mr
Defendants
through
the States marriage
their
Waldruff
state
law
is
at all
times relevant
respective duties and obligations
ban Each Defendant and
acts
alleged here proximately caused the
injure Plaintiffs irreparably
if
not enjoined
harm
Accordingly
to this
that
of 42
complaint
are responsible for
those subject to their direction
supervision and control intentionally performed participated
manner the
to
enforcing
a fee on each marriage license solemnizing marriages maintaining records relating
collecting
exclude
complaint
Multnomah County
Mr
U SC
samesex
in
aided
and or
abetted in
some
alleged herein and will continue
the relief
to
requested herein is sought
against each Defendant as well as all persons under their supervision direction
or control
including but not limited to their officers employees and agents
III
32
Plaintiffs
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
U SC
1983
to
redress the deprivation
under color of state law of rights secured by the United States Constitution
33
to
28
U SC
This Court has original jurisdiction
over the subject matter of this action
in
controversy
arise
pursuant
34
Venue
is
official
U SC
offices in Marion
1391
b1
and
County Oregon and
all
Defendants
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
2 because
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Oregon and because a
reside within the state of
claims took
Plaintiffs
35
substantial
part
of the events that gave
rise
to the
place
judgment and
to
provide
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and 28
36
in
U SC
2201 and 2202
This Court has personal jurisdiction
over Defendants
because they are domiciled
the State
IV
Plaintiff couples
37
members who
freely
to
Marry
who
as their heterosexual
may marry
Plaintiffs
neighbors
experience
co workers
are productive
of marriage
enforcement
by the State
other families through
to
The States exclusion
of that exclusion
the
same
joys and
and other community
contributing citizens
families and nurture their children but must do so without the
and respect afforded
status
Eligibility
OF FACTS
Plaintiff couples are residents of Oregon
challenges of family life
their
STATEMENT
same
who
support
shelter dignity
legal
access to the universally celebrated
of Plaintiffs from marriage and Defendants
subjects Plaintiffs to an inferior second class status relative to
the rest of the political community and deprives them and their children of equal dignity
and
security
38
and
Ben
wish
to
protections
legal
But for the
this
from marriage as a
willing to provide
fee
State
result
to
other Oregon families
they are of the
fact that
and Lisa and Chris
marry in
afforded
same sex
both of the Plaintiff couples
are legally qualified to marry under the laws of the
Each
is
over the age of
17
fully
competent
of having another spouse or being closely
and
related
is
Paul
Oregon and
not precluded
to the other
They are
the requisite information to receive a marriage license and to pay the required
responsibilities
of marriage
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
39
In
amendment
to
subdivisions
recognized
submitted
Measure
following
that
campaign
ballot initiative
providing It
Or Const
as marriage.
40
leveraging
2004
man
is
voters approved
the policy of
and one
woman
Measure
Oregon and
its
36
an
political
be valid or legally
shall
5a
art 15
Measure 36 passed narrowly Proponents of Measure 36 secured
men
and lesbians
its
passage by
For instance proponents
statements for publication in the statewide Voters Pamphlet regarding
the following
36
a
we
If
forced
to
place
foster
marriage the
children in
samesex
state
will be
households
Schools and society will be teaching the next generation

the
equality of
the importance
same sex
marriage changing our views of
cause kids to question
their
with a behavior
experimentation
It
will
sexual identity and increase

that is
neither emotionally
nor physically healthy.
To radically and fundamentally change

marriage to include
to reject
Gods purpose
children
and a nation
standing
to
and
what
unnatural
irreversible
God
in
the definition of
considers an abomination is
marriage for
men women
Providing equivalent
relationships
changes to our
legal
will force devastating
society.
YES on Measure 36 Because Its the Way Nature

Meant
to Be A Marriage between a man and woman is
more than just about a loving relationship
also about
Vote
its
it
the laws of nature.
MYTH
Homosexuals

the
to
couples through
arrangements
Same sex
on children
harm because
theyre
REALITY Many
of
protections
same sex
suffer serious
of marriage
marriage
It
is
is
a vast untested social experiment
intentionally subject children to social experimentation.
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
If
Oregon
the
the same sex be
want to
Constitution requires two individuals of
sic able
is difficult
it
of any sex
to
marry simply because they
argue larger groups of individuals
to
polygamy or
polyamory should not also be
able to join in group marriage.
Defining marriage as between one female and one male
does not violate anyones

their
rights
civil
For example

considered
no
sic sister brother mother or father
And
its
one can marry
not
having two spouses.
41
had proven
parents
Also
a recurring claim in Voters Pamphlet statements was that scientific studies
same sex
relationships to be unhealthy
and bad for children being raised by
42
The Oregon
that
marriage
is
a civil
contract entered
into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age.
106.010
Numerous
106.150
1 requires
and wife.
other Oregon statutes refer to a husband and wife
Similarly under
ORS
106.041
husband and wife the persons named
43
creating
In
2008
samesex
the authorization accompanying
in
some
is
ORS
not a marriage
between these two legally recognized relationships
this state
The
106.300
ORS
The Family Fairness Act
106.305
In
will exist
Legislative Assembly recognizes that
restrictions
may
not be effective
contained in federal law.
Id
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
fact the
distinctions
partnerships under the laws of this state
and cannot impact
Act which
and obligations of marriage by
findings of the statute explicitly recognize that numerous
of domestic
as
the license.
clearly states that a domestic partnership
a properly issued
the Oregon legislature passed the Oregon Family Fairness
couples with
ORS
the marriage ceremony to join together
legislative
For instance
ORS
the parties to a marriage to declare that they take each other to be husband
marriage license requires the official conducting
provides
same sex
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
44
On
26 2013
June
United States
in
S Ct 2675
Windsor 133
2013
US
the
Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had prevented the
federal government
45
On
October
17 2013
the Deputy
couples
samesex
46
likely
couples
who
marry
in
of
out of state
marriages of
samesex
that
compelling
state
sex no
partner of each
from recognizing
in
acknowledge
but refusing
interest
in
in
The
continues
would have to
state
to recognize marriages
muster even
Barring
letter
in
same sex
much
the
less
Oregon contain one
at
of
same sex
articulate
and again
we
state
relationships
To
The States Exclusion

on Plaintiffs
47
that
benefit to Oregon results from that limitation and no injury would result
marriages the
pass constitutional
Measure 36
the marriages.
Oregon
states
the
couples but concluded
the opinion letter noted that we cannot identify any legitimate
Specifically
letter
other states
recognition
may respect
In the opinion letter the Deputy Attorney General recognized
barred recognition
That
because Oregon generally respects out of state marriages the State
marriages of
same sex
Attorney General issued an opinion letter to the
Chief Operating
that
from respecting the valid marriages of
defend a refusal to
interest
in
allowing partnerships
cannot point to any such interest that would
Same Sex
are given legal
Couples from Marriage
rational
Inflicts
basis review.
Profound
Harm
couples from marriage disqualifies them from critically
important rights and responsibilities that different sex couples rely upon to secure their
commitment
to
each other and
to
safeguard their families
By way
of example
only
same sex
couples are denied
The
ability to
ceremonies
solemnize
their
The denial of
relationships
state
through
state sanctioned
sanction or recognition
deprives
same sex
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
marriage
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
that
come
automatically
with
state sanctioned marriage
The
ability to
safeguard family resources under an array of laws that protect
spousal finances including for
example
the exemption from federal
the others
employment and
that
taxable
one partner receives through
the exemption or deferral
taxes on the
of federal
property of certain elderly or disabled residents
host of federal rights and responsibilities that span the entire United States
Code and
for virtually all purposes throughout
the more than 1,000 statutes and
recognition
Many
financial
48
harm
and local governments
responsibilities
way
on
to
samesex
this
directive
resources causing
couples but to their children
as well
state
agencies
Thus married same sex
of
to recognize all marriages
couples in Oregon are denied rights and
of marriage to the extent enjoyment of such rights and responsibilities is
entities
of example only
not only to
Michael Jordan has directed
performed outside Oregon
contingent
Although the Chief Operating
marriage including laws pertaining
housing taxes criminal sanctions copyright and veterans
Social Security
benefits
relating to
The
not bound by
samesex
ability to
priority
to
Mr
may
be denied
caretaking
decisions
couples
make
make medical
whether government
Jordans directive
in
right
decisions for an incapacitated
and
priority
to
make
spouse the
right
anatomical
ability
to
gifts
of a decedents
body
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
By
times of death and disaster including
petition a circuit court for an autopsy the automatic
and the automatic
or private
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
The
ability to
support each other in
end of life
assured privacy for visits with a spouse
The
right
room with
to inheritance
a spouse
an individual
if
if
circumstances
is
such as being
in a nursing
both reside in the
same
nursing
under the laws of intestacy to claim an elective
spouses estate rights in the family residence pending
deceased
home
and
home
share in a
final
determination of the estate and other survivor benefits including for example
survivor benefits for a spouse and children
performing
In the event
firefighting
that
of an individual killed while
duties
a couple separates access
to
an orderly dissolution process for
terminating the relationship and assuring an equitable
division of the couples
assets and debts
49
While
samesex
couples are eligible to enter into domestic partnerships
Oregon law those domestic partnerships are not
protections
of marriage
For
who
Couples
ineligible
identical
under
to marriage and do not offer the full
example
have entered
into
domestic partnerships under Oregon law
for virtually all the federal protections
otherwise
available
will
be
to validly
married couples
Couples
who
may not
have those relationships
recognize
50
In addition
social recognition
that
respected
to
who
enter into domestic partnerships in Oregon
the tangible
marriage conveys
harms
listed
Without
to
the extent those states do not
apart from marriage
above
Plaintiffs
of marriage Plaintiffs are unable instantly or adequately to communicate
permanence of
by invoking
their
their
commitment
or
travel to other states
to obtain respect for that commitment as others do simply
married status
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
51
include
The
particular
harms to
permanence
stability
and dignitary
substantive
same sex
inequities
couples
and legitimacy
that
children
samesex
imposed on committed
who
are equally deserving
couples
of the
who
are enjoyed by children of different sex couples
marry
Civil marriage affords official sanctuary to the family unit offering parents and children
critical
means
to
secure legal parent child
view
By
denying
same sex
samesex
the family bonds that tie
that
bonds and
question
their
moments
familial relationship
of crisis
52
in a
must
accordingly
parents and their children
way
that
in
support as other families
couples
that
The
of
class
others
settings
is
samesex
in
and in
being married
interest to justify
of inferiority
that will
invite
instruct all
children
and
couples are not worthy of the protections
own
family
recognition
By decreeing
a powerful teacher of discrimination to others
policy the State and Defendants
may
of families as less worthy than
of Plaintiffs with a badge
on the playground and
interact including those couples
others
to
of marriage and not entitled to the same societal
The government
the relationships
enforcing
possibility that
spouses can avoid by simple reference
including the children
that
Same sex
children
other families undeserving
53
the
are less consequential
and medical
social legal educational
unit and likewise understand when the State has deemed a
same sex
their
with the ever present
live
of demonstrating
couples marriage the State reinforces
enduring and meaningful than those of different sex parents and
way
a familiar public
that their
persons with
relationships
of marriage and
whom same sex
couples
Bearing the imprimatur of the government the States statutory and constitutional
are unfit for the dignity respect
encourages others
to
enforcement
and
stature
of it
afforded
follow the governments
communicates
to
example
a view that
same sex
in
and
discriminating against
this
them
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
couples
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
54
Many
private entities defer to the States conferral
of marital status in defining
family for purposes of an array of important benefits often resulting in the exclusion
same sex
couples and their children from important safety nets such as private
employerprovided health insurance for family members

encourage
disrespect of committed
samesex
readily corrected
if
The
State and Defendants
schools businesses and other major arenas of life
more
in
to
ways
that
same sex
by others
would be
also
workplaces
in
less likely
to
occur and
couples
Same Sex Couples from Marriage is Not Even Rationally

Governmental Purpose Let Alone Substantially Related to
an Important Government Purpose or Narrowly Tailored to a Compelling
Governmental Purpose
The
States Exclusion of
Related
55
same sex
to a Legitimate
No
couples from the historic and highly venerated
capacity to establish a loving and enduring
legitimate interest in justifying
protections
it
provides
56
continue
samesex
relationship does not depend
couples
exclusion
couples
may
protections
Because
associated
out of state
that
individuals
individuals
couples does not benefit heterosexual
marry
in
that
couples
denying respect
Different sex spouses
the
will
the acknowledgment
that this
freedom
men
the State already grants
samesex
couples
many
but not all of the legal
with marriage through domestic partnership registration and
marriages of
to
by marriage regardless of whether
Oregon unimpaired by
belongs equally to lesbians and gay
57
upon
An
partner nor is there even
same sex
of marriage
exclude
on such bases
The Deputy
marriages of
same sex
interest exists to
institution
sexual orientation or sex in relation to his or her committed life
the
of
samesex
couples
denying
same sex
now
respects
couples the ability to secure a
interest
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222

of Due Process
S Const Amend XIV
Deprivation
58
Plaintiffs
59
Plaintiffs
set forth
state
this
The
pursuant to 42
Fourteenth
U SC
1983
herein
Amendment
provides
capacities
to
the United
no
state
U S Const
15
shall
Constitution
deprive
amend XIV
section
same sex
States
5A ORS
couples violate
enforceable
any person of life liberty or
1
106.010 and
all
other sources
Amendment
62
ones life
that
of state law that preclude marriage for
Fourteenth
in their official
property without due process of law.
61
all
60
incorporate
The
in this
right
to marry the unique person of ones choice and to direct the course of
protected by the
liberty interests
Due
Process
restriction is
Amendment
Defendants
actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe this right for all lesbian
and gay Oregonians including
Plaintiffs
interfering with a core life altering and intimate
personal choice
63
autonomy
The Due
Process
Clause also protects choices central
including each individuals
rights
to
personal dignity and
Defendants
actions to enforce the marriage ban directly and impermissibly infringe upon the deeply intimate
personal and private decisions of lesbian and gay Oregonians regarding family life and preclude
them from obtaining
full
liberty dignity and security
for themselves
their
families and their
children
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
64
As
enforce the States marriage
policies
of the executive
tax obligations
state
professions violate
ban
including those taken
branch relating to for
65
compliance
pursuant
example
with
to
the fundamental
right
law
autonomy
Amendment
66
compliance
rights
to liberty dignity
to
Rosenblums
ban
autonomy
family integrity
violate the fundamental
right
As
samesex
to register
to liberty dignity
67
by
for example furnishing forms for
marriage licenses of
Amendment
As
autonomy
same sex
couples
violate
samesex
association
their
Plaintiffs
and due process of Paul and
the fundamental
as well as rights protected
Ben
to
liberty dignity
right
Waldruffs
by
for
duties and
example
to marry of lesbian
autonomy
family integrity
and Lisa and Chris
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
constitutional
and gay Oregonians including
Amendment
the fundamental
denying
Woodwards
marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs as well as
Fourteenth
rights to liberty
Groom, and refusing
rights
to marry of
family integrity association and due process under the Fourteenth
right to
records
lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs as well as their constitutional
dignity
vital
to marry of lesbian and gay Oregonians including
state
his responsibility for the
As
Kitzhabers duties and actions to
Plaintiffs as well as their constitutional
association
officer Defendant
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
68
and
and due process
liberty
penalizing Plaintiffs
69
interests
autonomy and
in
with a fundamental
satisfy
right
Due
the
may
tailored to
Deprivation
of
U S Const
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
set forth
state
this
The
pursuant to 42
U SC
1983
73
Plaintiffs
difficult
violates
to
guarantee
15
Equal
all
Protection
Amend XIV
the United
no
state
all
shall
15
section
capacities
in their official
Constitution
enforceable
5A ORS
106.010 and
Amendment
all
other sources
of their marriages
both facially and as applied
discrimination in the form of a constitutional
5A
deprives
of the laws by locking them out of the political process and making
secure legislation on their behalf
The conduct
its
amend XIV
of the Fourteenth
section
States
U S Const
same sex
Moreover by enshrining
to
of the laws.
of state law that preclude marriage for
protection
that
violate the equal protection
interest at
provides
jurisdiction
any legitimate
herein
Amendment
Fourteenth
72
governmental
be sustained only upon a showing
incorporate
that
VI
to
Process Clauses decree
or liberty interest
interest as the marriage ban is not even
71
it
amendment
of equal
uniquely
discriminating impermissibly on the basis of sexual orientation and
more
these laws
the right of lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs to equal protection
by
sex
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
marry
family integrity and association by
the burden is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling or even
70
right to
self determination in the most intimate sphere of their lives
Defendants cannot
interference
that
actions thus deny and abridge Plaintiffs fundamental
Defendants
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
74
As
enforce Measure
executive
36
state
orientation or
sex
75
compliance
As
with
example
professions violate
Amendment
law
state
compliance
As
constitutional
samesex
to register
As
ban
the constitutional
violate
samesex
Ben
78
Woodwards
by
for example furnishing forms for
marriage licenses of
same sex
couples
violate
couples marriage licenses violate the constitutional
the
States
The
second
marriage
ban and
Defendants
marriage ban brands lesbians gay
class citizens through a message
private bias and discrimination
including their
Waldruffs
by
for
duties and
example
rights to equal treatment
and Lisa and Chris
The
responsibilities
as
of all
to equal treatment
actions to enforce it
couples equal dignity and respect and deprives their families of a critical
children
rights
of Paul and
Rosenblums
rights of lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs to equal treatment
77
denying
Groom, and refusing
records tax
vital
constitutional rights to equal treatment without regard to sexual
Plaintiffs
lesbian and gay Oregonians including Plaintiffs
76
Kitzhabers duties and actions to
including those taken pursuant to his responsibility for the policies of the
branch relating to for
obligations
officer Defendant
own
children
by instructing
that their
all
of
men
denies
and bisexuals as well as
government imposed
persons with
their
stigma and fosters
whom samesex
relationship is less worthy than others
couples interact
The
States
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
same sex
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
gay
men
and bisexuals
79
Same sex
couples such as the Plaintiff couples are identical to different sex
couples in all of the characteristics
80
couples
their
and antipathy toward lesbians
Same sex
couples
make
futures together and hope to
the same commitment to one another as different sex
samesex
grow
couples fall
old together
in love build their lives together plan
same sex
when
81
Plaintiffs
82
children
seek to marry for the
legal shelter to their
same emotional romantic and
families as different sex spouses
Like some different sex couples some
samesex
couples are parents raising
together
83
Plaintiffs
responsibilities
and
their
children
are equally worthy of the tangible
For the many children being raised by
couples the tangible resources and societal esteem
precious
than for children
rights
and
dignity and legitimacy that access to marriage confers on
different sex couples and their children
dignitary reasons
that
same sex
access to marriage confers
is
no
less
of different sex couples
84
The
from
marriage and discriminates against each Plaintiff based on his or her sexual orientation both
facially
and as applied
85
The
exclusion
subjects Defendants
cannot withstand
conduct
of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sexual orientation
to strict
or at least heightened scrutiny which
Defendants
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
conduct
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
interests let alone any important or compelling interests nor does
an adequately
tailored
86
it
manner
Lesbians gay
men
discrimination in Oregon and across the United States
87
contribute
Sexual orientation bears no relation
to
Sexual orientation
and conscience
that
a person
possible as a condition
89
a core defining
may not
all
trait
that is
legitimately be required
ability to
perform
in
or
so fundamental
to
abandon
it
to ones identity
even
if
that
were
of equal treatment
No
is
credible evidence supports the notion that such interventions
or safe indeed they often are harmful and
professional
virtually
is
Sexual orientation generally
intervention
effective
an individuals
society
88
through
to
organization
of them have
damaging No mainstream
that
attempt to change
adopted policy statements cautioning
are either
mental health
sexual orientation
professionals
and
and the public
90
prejudice
that
Lesbians gay
might ordinarily be
protections
sex based
91
at
relied
and bisexuals are a discrete and insular minority and ongoing
classifications
were declared
Lesbians gay
men
employment
to
bodies have been stripped of the
right to
and housing
at
rights
race and
against
the federal level and in
in federal state and local
marrythrough 30
state
constitutional
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
civil
respectively
processes
women had when
be suspect and quasi suspect
than half the states are systematically underrepresented
democratic
of those political
upon to protect minorities Gay people have fewer
discrimination in
more
men
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
amendments and are currently not permitted
marry
in
total
process
of 3533 states and have
more
than any other
been
group
92
The
and as applied barring
solely because
93
devoted
Because
life
were Paul a
woman
The
perpetuating
men
of these
is
wishes to marry a life
sexbased
she is a
precluded
Given
and wives there
96
is
The
of gender based
women
that
both facially
and not a
Lisa is precluded
man
were Lisa a
to
marry Ben under Oregon
is
from marrying her
man
man
she could marry
and not a
woman
law
marriage ban also serves the impermissible purpose of enforcing
95
sex
sex
partner of the same
should marry
classifications
woman
he would be able
States
against Plaintiffs on the basis of
from marriage or from being recognized as validly married
Plaintiffs
partner because
94
recognized
Plaintiffs
each of the
Chris Similarly Paul
that
to
and
samesex
couples from marriage or from being
to conform
those couples fail
women
and
should marry
to
sex based
stereotypes
men
there are no longer legal distinctions between the duties of husbands
no basis for the sex based
exclusion
eligibility
requirements
for marriage
of Plaintiffs from marriage based on their sex and the enforcement
stereotypes cannot survive
the heightened scrutiny required
for
sexbased
discrimination
by
97
the
Due Process Clause

The
marriage ban discriminates against lesbian and gay Oregonians
sexual orientation and sex with respect to the exercise of the fundamental
in
dignity
autonomy and
treatment with respect to Plaintiffs
right to
rights
and
liberty
marry and
Differential
interests based
on
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
based on
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
their
sexual orientation and
scrutiny
which Defendants
U SC
98
conduct
2202
set forth
incorporate
to Plaintiffs
favorable
because Defendants
present and ongoing
subjects them to serious and immediate
harms
warranting
judgment
of a declaratory
100
all
Rules 57 and 65
herein
the issuance
to strict
2201 and
Plaintiffs
99
subjects Defendants
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
VII
28
sex
decision
enjoining Defendants
would redress and prevent the
irreparable injuries to Plaintiffs identified herein for which
Plaintiffs
have no adequate
remedy
at
law or in equity
101
protections
same sex
in
Oregon currently allows
of marriage through
The
couples
Oregon whereas
subjecting
samesex
couples to access
some
but not all of the
domestic partnerships and respects out of state marriages of
State will incur
little
to no burden in allowing
samesex
couples to marry
the hardship for Plaintiffs of being denied equal treatment is severe
their
constitutional
rights
The
balance of hardships
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
VIII
WHEREFORE
A
section
5A
Plaintiffs
Declaring
that
respectfully request that this Court enter judgment
the provisions of and enforcement
of state law that
marriages of
1 exclude
samesex
samesex
couples
couples from marrying or
violate violates
Plaintiffs
rights
to
2 refuse
recognition
to
the
under the Due Process and
the United
States Constitution
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
15
Oregon Revised Statutes 106.010 and any other sources
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Permanently enjoiningand further issuing a permanent injunction
by the State and
Constitution
same sex
its
including Defendants
subdivisions
15
of Article
to
state
the marriages of
bars enforcement
5A
section
Oregon Revised Statutes 106.010 and any other sources of
couples from marriage or to refuse recognition
that
of the Oregon
law
to
exclude
samesex
couples
validly married in another jurisdiction
Declaring
responsibilities
Oregon
deny
Declaring
1 b ORS
93.180
statutes
samesex
ORS
same sex
108.020
ORS
ORS
106.041
1 and
ORS
106.150
couples full and equal recognition
are
rights
obligations
that
ORS
106.010
insofar as they deny
unconstitutional
privileges
that
40.135
108.040
1 u ORS 40.255 1 b ORS 59.350 1 ORS

1 ORS
1 ORS 314.105 2 a
136.655
and
referring to husband and wife, are unconstitutional
couples full and equal recognition
rights privileges
all
other
but only insofar as they
responsibilities
obligations
Issuing a permanent injunction that the State and
Defendants
privileges
must
in all
respects grant to
responsibilities
CE
marry
pursuant to the
freedom
to
same
of
couples full
subdivisions
including
and equal recognition rights
and immunities of different sex couples
obligations
Requiring the State and
same sex
its
its
subdivisions
including Defendants in their official
to issue and register marriage licenses tofor
restrictions
samesex
couples to
and limitations applicable to different sex couples
marry
Recognizing
the marriages of
same sex
couples validly married in another
jurisdiction
DG
to
inter
Awarding
alia 42
EH
U SC
Plaintiffs
their
costs expenses and reasonable attorneys
1988 and other applicable laws and
Granting such other and further relief
as the Court
deems
just
and proper
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
fees pursuant
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
FI
Defendant
The
declaratory
and injunctive
against each Defendants
relief
requested in this action is sought against each
officers employees and agents and against all persons
acting in active concert or participation with any Defendant or under any Defendants
or control
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
DATED
December 19 2013January 22 2014

Thomas
R Johnson
OSB No 010645
com
Holm OSB No 112607
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
J
Kristina
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Perkins Coie LLP
Telephone
503.727.2000
Middleton OSB
Jennifer
Cooperating
ACLU
541.683.2506
Foundation
Kevin Daz
OSB
of
Rose
Saxe
Oregon Inc
No
KDiaz aclu ororg

ACLU Foundation of
KDiaz aclu ororg
Telephone
071510
Schaller PC
Johnson Johnson
Telephone
No
970480
Oregon Inc
503.227.6928
pro hac vice
RSaxe aclu org

Amanda
Goad
pro hac vice
AGoad aclu org

to
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
LEGAL28727382.629023055.1
be submitted
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Document comparison
2014
by Workshare
Compare on Wednesday
January
22
10 12 48 AM
Input
Document 1 ID
28727382v6
Description
Document 2 ID
DMS LEGAL 28727382 6
LEGAL
interwovenSite
29023055v1
Description
Rendering
interwovenSite
Complaint
DMS LEGAL 29023055 1
LEGAL
Amended
case
set
perkins
Legend
Insertion
Deletion
Moved from
Moved
to
Style change
Format change
Moved
deletion
Inserted
Deleted
Moved
cell
cell
cell
Split Merged
Padding
cell
cell
Statistics
Count
Insertions
35
Deletions
32
Moved from
Moved
Style
to
change
Format changed
Total
changes
marriage case
0
0
71
Complaint
marriage
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
1 22 2014 2 08 59
Subject
11 17357 pdf
Attachments
11 17357 pdf
http
Sheila
H
PM
ATT00001 htm
cdn ca9 uscourts gov datastore opinions 2014 01 20 11 17357 pdf
FILED
JAN 21 2014
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No 11 17357
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM
CORPORATION DBA
GlaxoSmithKline
D C No 407 cv 05702 CW
Appellee
Plaintiff
OPINION
ABBOTT LABORATORIES
Defendant
Appellant
No 11 17373
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM
CORPORATION DBA
GlaxoSmithKline
D C No 407 cv 05702 CW
Appellant
Plaintiff
v
ABBOTT LABORATORIES
Defendant
Appellee
Appeal from the United States

for the
Northern
Claudia Wilken
District
Court
District of California
Chief District
Judge
Argued and Submitted September
Presiding
18 2013
C DWYER
US COURT
CLERK
OF APPEALS
San Francisco
Before
SCHROEDER REINHARDT
Opinion by Judge
The
and
California
BERZON
REINHARDT
antitrust contract
GSK
against
and unfair trade practice
of considerable controversy in the gay
UTPA
HIV
community
laws and North
licensing
to
GSK
one of
own
drive business
that contains
of
being a subject
claims center
good
HIV
latter
faith
relates to
and
Act by
on
fair
the
dealing
first
drug in conjunction
with
and then increasing the price of the Abbott drug fourfold so as to
to Abbotts
own
selfidentified gay member of the venire
476
U S 79
basis of sexual orientation
This appeals
discrimination based
1986
The
its
first
GSK
arguing that
district
central question is
on
drug
combination
During jury selection Abbott used
Kentucky
GSKs
Carolinas Unfair Trade Practices
the authority to market an Abbott
by
claims The dispute
medications the
contention that Abbott violated the implied covenant
the antitrust
Abbott
Abbott Laboratories
a licensing agreement and the pricing of
Judge
Circuit
central question in this appeal arises out of a lawsuit brought
SmithKline Beecham
its
Circuit Judges
it
peremptory
challenged
strike against
the only
the strike under Batson
was impermissibly made on
the
judge denied the challenge
whether equal protection prohibits
sexual orientation in jury selection
We
must
first
decide
whether
than rational basis
heightened
strikes
based on sexual orientation are subject to a standard higher
classifications
review
We
scrutiny
We
hold
that
such
also hold that equal
classifications
protection
based on sexual orientation and remand
for a
are subject
to
prohibits peremptory
new
trial
I
During jury selection the
potential jurors based
opportunity
Juror
on
district
B a male she inquired

members
and then each partys counsel
their questionnaires
to ask additional questions
of the previous
judge began by asking questions of the
first
about
of the venire
When
his
the judge turned her attention to
employment
Juror
had an
as she had done with each
stated that he
worked
as
computer technician for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco
During the course of the judges colloquy with Juror
partner studied economics and investments
with additional questions
by using
the masculine
When
B the
the district
pronoun
judge followed up
he, and the judge subsequently referred to Juror
his
Responding to additional questions from the judge Juror
GSK medication
arrived for Abbotts
that his
the prospective juror referred to his partner three times
Bs partner as he in a follow up question regarding
Abbott or a
juror revealed
and
that
he had friends with
employment status
HIV When
counsel Weinberger to question Juror
stated that
he took an
the time
the questioning
was
brief
and limited Counsels
medications that
know some people who
about the medications
he didnt
it
In
that
Juror
he had
which medication
either
the time
strike against Juror
challenge
about
that
here
he did not
five questions
an Abbott or
all
Norvir or
know
He
GSK medication how
for peremptory challenges
who
Okay So you know

is a
the
peremptory challenge
I think is or appears
to
whether
added
that
Abbotts counsel did not ask
long ago
He
also failed to ask
fairly
and impartially
Abbott exercised
be
first
of
its
a Batson
and the following discussion ensued
your honor
really.
regarding his
GSKs counsel Saveri immediately raised
Mr Saveri
anything
whether any of them are taking
or the purpose of the medication
came
know
responded Not
any questions as to whether Juror B could decide the case
When
you
you
he had no personal experiences with
issue in the litigation
taken
was
it
that
Do
he had heard of Kaletra
that
Abbotts counsel asked Juror
B when
know
B responded
about the drug and
at
HIV
are going to be talking
of those?
knowledge of the drugs
Juror
we
took those medications but
know much
sum
Juror Bs knowledge of the
any of them are on? Juror
then continued Do you
Lexiva any
his friends
have been diagnosed with
that
any of the medications
Kaletra or
question concerned
the focal point of the litigation You indicated that
were
Abbotts counsel
first
challenge
someone who
is
could be homosexual
first
Thats use of the peremptory

discriminatory
AIDS
So with
medication
it
looks
like
anybody
wanted
The
community
is the litigation
well known
is
Abbott wants to exclude from
challenge
Abbott wants to exclude from the pool
who
gay So
is
am
concerned
about that
to raise it
The Court Well
know
I dont
that
number one
whether Batson applies in civil and number
how we would know
mean
I
one person of a given group
everyone is
gay and
who
two
whether
Number three
Batson ever applies to sexual orientation
that
AIDS
sic of
incidents
men
gay
that
honor
of course your
in the homosexual
particularly
in a
way
The problem here

involves
challenge
the evil of Batson
excluded
is
is
not
but that
And
there is
isnt
here unless somebody happens to say
no way
for us to
know who
is
something
There would be no
real
way
to analyze it
four one turns to the other side and asks

their challenge
and
tell
if
one
The Court Or
might be the
it
Well
you
if
better part of valor to
he
dont want
to you can
stand
on
my
three reasons
Mr Weinberger
point your honor
applies
I will
I
stand
on
the
Your honor
he had a male partner
Mr Weinberger
first
This
in fact
So
is
my first
is
case that
we
at this
gay or not
he said on voir
challenge
are sitting here after three challenges
make a
three
dont think any of the challenge
have no idea whether he
Mr Saveri
we
in
is
it
Mr Weinberger
first
for the basis for
other than the category that they are
you have
us what
And number
are excluding
Its
dire that
not like
and you can
anybody
The
judge then
district
reconsider her ruling
if
that she
stated
would allow
Abbott struck other gay
Abbotts strike and
would
men
B
At
the conclusion of the
held for Abbott
verdict
It
contract
claim
It
on
awarded
fourweek
trial
the antitrust and
3,486,240
the jury returned with a mixed
UTPA
in damages to
claims and
for
GSK on
the
GSK
Abbott appealed the jury verdict on the contract
GSK
crossappealed
On
cross appeal
GSK contends
counts including the contract
peremptory
strike
to exclude
remand
for a
new
trial
is
juror
on
on
warranted
claim because Abbott unconstitutionally
that the exclusion of the juror
we
new
that a
claim and
used a
the basis of his sexual orientation
because of
his sexual orientation
all
We
hold
violated Batson and
trial
II
The Batson
challenging
analysis involves
First the party
the peremptory strike must establish a prima facie case of intentional
discrimination
striking party
Kesser
has
v Cambra 465
F3d 351
359
must give a nondiscriminatory reason
the court determines
challenge
a three part inquiry
shown
on
9th Cir
2006 Second
for the strike
See id Finally
the basis of the record whether the party raising the
purposeful discrimination
Id Because
the
the district
judge
wrong
applied the
Batson challenge
legal standard
de
novo
in evaluating the Batson claim
United States
F3d
Collins 551
we
review the
914 919
9th
Cir
2009
To
that
1 the
prospective juror
peremptory
raises
against
strike
an inference
Collins 551
first
step
Batson
establish a prima facie case under
is
919
by producing
was
motivated
defendant
evidence
2005 The
onerous one.
Newland 467
9th
subject
F3d
at the
1139 1151
judge to draw an
California
545
U S 162
prima facie stage
9th
Cir 2004
Crittenden
established
a prima
facie case of intentional
the only juror to have identified himself as gay
matter of the litigation
community
question
in
is
It
is
Ayers 624
not an
F3d
Cir 2010
GSK has
B was
the characteristic
Johnson
burden of production not a burden of persuasion
943 954
used a
counsel
totality of the circumstances
to permit the trial
sufficient
burden on the challenging party
Boyd
by
satisfies the requirements of Batsons
inference that discrimination has occurred.
170
3 the
must produce evidence
group
of a cognizable
the individual and
that the strike
F3d at
member
GSK
When
presented
jury pools contain
on
discrimination
the record and the
an issue of consequence
little
racial
Juror
to the gay
or ethnic diversity
we
have held
that a strike of the lone
member
of the minority group is a relevant consideration
have further cautioned
against failing to
look
sole minority is struck from the venire this
is
closely at instances
because
695 698
the
Collins 551
n5
9th
F3d
Cir 1989
at
921
for the court to err
on
at
955
We
in
which the
so
would
in jury pools with scant
see also United States
Chinchilla 874
one
lthough the striking of
same racial group may not always
do
failure to
innoculate peremptory strikes against Batson challenges
diversity
Id
whether a prima facie case has been established
in determining
the side of the defendants rights to
two members
or
case
constitute a prima facie
F2d
it
of
is preferable
and impartial
fair
jury.
There
is
also reason to infer that Abbott struck Juror
sexual orientation
because
of
its
fear that
on
he would be influenced by concern
gay community over Abbotts decision to increase the price of
we
analyzed whether the appellant had
Campbell 92
F3d 951
9th
Cir 1996
struck jurors sexual orientation
litigation
511
Id
U S 141
at
953
1994
n1
the
The
made
out
a prima
for instance
had no relevance
converse
Supreme Court
the basis of his
we
HIV drug When
its
facie case in
found
to the subject
it
in the
Johnson
significant
that the
matter of the
JEB v
Alabama
true as
well
In
stated that
when
the gender of the juror
is
coincided with the subject
strike
based on sex increases substantially
price of the
Upon
matter of the case the potential for an impermissible
HIV
raising the
of the litigation
here
Batson challenge
involves
community
is
Wheeler
GSKs
AIDS
counsel
argued
well known
Viewing the
totality
Id
particularly
in the process
see also
Powers
of the circumstances
In evaluating an ineffective
The
medications
impermissible stereotypes
particularly acute in this case
1991 1
140 Here
the increase
in the
that the subject matter
raised suspicions regarding the purpose of the strike
in the homosexual
on
at
drug had led to considerable discussion in the gay community
is the litigation
for relying
Id
assistance
sic of
gay men. The
of selecting jurors
we
incidents
The problem
potential
was
U S 400 416
Ohio 499
have no
AIDS
difficulty
in
of counsel claim for failure to raise
claim the California analog of a Batson claim
we
stated that asking
Hispanic surnamed venire members whether they would be biased in evaluating a

case involving
Hispanic defendant
did not pose any constitutional
because asking questions about potential bias

Carrera v Ayers 699
suggests that
if
F3d
Abbotts
1104 1111
counsel
9th
is
the purpose of voir dire.
Cir 2012
was concerned
problem
that
en
banc
Carrera
gay members of the jury pool
might be biased because the price increase had gained some notoriety in the gay
community he could have
questioned Juror
pursuing this line of questioning

Abbotts counsel
struck
ability to
about
this potential
bias
Instead
of
about Juror Bs ability to assess the case fairly
him without any
raising the inference that he had relied
Bs
indication
on an
be impartial
that
he was biased thereby
impermissible assumption about Juror
GSK
concluding
that
prima
case
facie
Also Abbott
the opportunity to
reject the
has raised
inference of discrimination and established a
declined to provide
do so by
any
court
the district
on
Batson challenge
Abbotts counsel
an
replied that he
would
rely
on
He
later
added
discrimination because
The
district
when only
or
that
this
that
was only
member
civil
Court held over twenty years ago
Leesville Concrete
Batson does not apply

is
his
first
when
also a legal error because
cases
F3d 900
2008
902
citing
uncertainty
9th Cir
the judge and further
have no idea whether he
is
struck
Co 500 U S
The
is clearly incorrect
civil
614 631 1991
first
onstitution
1994
see also Snyder
and quoting Vasquez
Lopez Her
final
statement
10
is
See
Her statement
is
that
excluded
a single
Vasquez Lopez
Louisiana 552
about whether Batson applies to sexual orientation
appeal
cases
statement
context
forbids striking even
United States
civil
The Supreme
only a single member of the given group
t he
is
intentional
Batson applies in the
that
him that
Abbotts
Batson did not apply in
that
prospective juror for a discriminatory purpose.
22
she told
strike
of a protected group
Batson does not apply to
Edmonson
applies
by
he could not have engaged in
judge offered her view
a single
the basis for his strike
the grounds given
explained I dont think any of the challenge
gay or not.
he could adopt those grounds although she advised
that
offered
After the judge stated that she might
legal grounds that were in fact erroneous
it might be the better part of valor to reveal
counsel
when
justification for its strike
U S 472 474
expressing
the subject
of this
Counsels statement
that
he did not
know
that Juror
with the record nor an explanation for
consistent
B was
his strike
gay
is
First Juror
neither
and the
judge referred to Juror Bs male partner several times during the course of voir dire
and repeatedly used masculine pronouns when
referring to
information regarding Juror Bs sexual orientation
course of voir dire counsels statement
US
the
at
48283 comparing
record Second
the false statement
for striking Juror
it
Taking
Paulino
II 542
See Snyder 552
from credible
reasons with the plausible facts
non responsive
it
was simply a
on
denial
provided a reason colorable or
Because the denial was demonstrably untrue
was
not based
on
intentional
a strong inference arises that counsel engaged
when he
F3d 692
exercised the strike
70203
9th Cir
2008
Paulino
see also
adoption of the courts erroneous legal reasons
be inapplicable to the type of
trial
suggest any explanation
why
as to
before her does
not
in
Harrison
why
US
at
Batson might
of course provide or even
counsel struck Juror
11
Johnson 545
Abbotts
the
these factors together including the absence of any
all
discrimination
was adduced during
that
that his challenge
proffered reason for the challenge
intentional
Given the
Counsels denial of a discriminatory motive had
undermines counsels argument
discrimination
was
no way
in
the opposite effect of that intended
it
far
counsels proffered
of a discriminatory intent and
otherwise
was
him
171
n 6 In the
trial
unlikely hypothetical
in which
counsel declines
to
respond to a
judges inquiry regarding his justification for making a strike the evidence
before the judge
facie case
was
would
consist not only of the original facts from which the prima
established
but also
counsels refusal to
justify his strike in light
of the courts request.
Abbotts counsel
asked Juror
him meaningfully about
at
921 Combined
B only
five questions and failed to question
his impartiality or potential
with Abbotts counsels statement in the face of
in the record to the contrary that he did not
dire reveals
that Abbotts strike
was based
bias but on a discriminatory assumption
the case because
at
on
360
appeal to our
the reasons
f a
Court
know
not
on a concern
clear
B was gay
for Juror
evidence
the voir
Bs actual
F3d
at
36062
to offer several neutral reasons for the strike in
but these reasons are also belied
many
by
of the proffered
a pretext for racial discrimination.
the juror
was
stricken, Paulino
12
its
See id
the record
reasons
Ordinarily
does not matter what reasons the striking party might have offered because
matters is the real reason
F3d
could not impartially evaluate
See Kesser 465
review of the record undermines
may be deemed
that Juror
that Juror
of his sexual orientation
Finally Abbott attempts
brief
See Collins 551
biases
it
w hat
Castro Paulino
371
F3d 1083
1090
2004
9th Cir
offered at the time of the strike
by
that counsel
could have offered are pretextual
juror
supported
who
and able counsel
One reason advanced by Abbott on
who
had
by
lost friends to
due
died of complications
AIDS We
Nowhere does
the record
to
second reason advanced
acquainted
many people
with
lawyers and other

but served
on
jurors
technician at the
We
speculative
HIV
knew about
no
or
influence
B was the
because
it
is
that Juror
appeal is that Juror
only
not
had friends
B was
Other jurors however
who
relatives
on
who
were
were lawyers were not stricken
appeal that because
on
he had heard
the
Juror
B was
credit the idea
his fellow jurors than
two lawyers who remained on
a computer
B was
that Juror
is the
kind of highly
Snyder 552
US
the only potential juror

at
issue
the other jurors
This
rejected in
of any of the three drugs

Juror
would
the panel
Supreme Court
drug however
When
482
at
who
asked what he
replied not much, and stated that he had
with it
three of the four reasons offered
record casts strong doubt
on
of our en banc decision in

withstand
360
AIDS
have more respect for jurors than to
personal experience
Here
show
F3d at
other jurors might have given extra weight to his
rationale that the
that
See Kesser 465
the record
after full
even the best explanations
appeal is that Juror
by Abbott on
with close
that
reject this reason
Finally Abbott points out that Juror

testified
in the legal field
speculates
Court
would have more

including the
is the reason
the jury
Third Abbott
opinions
that
from the reasons offered on appeal
deliberation
highly respected
original
in
true Here Abbott offered no reasons for the
if
we know
dire but
strike at the voir
emphasis
the fourth
by Abbott
In such a circumstance
Kesser and conclude
judicial scrutiny
See
id
465
are pretextual and the
F3d
at
that
none
360
we
follow the rule
of those reasons can
court need not find
all
nonracial reasons pretextual in order to find racial discrimination. see also
Thus
the court
Although these
is
left
criteria
with only two acceptable
would normally be
id
bases for the challenges
adequate
neutral
explanations taken
at
continued
13
The
would
had
record reflects that
necessarily have concluded
impermissibly
made on
F3d
Alanis 335
the district
judge applied the law correctly she
that Abbotts
strike of Juror
9th
Cir 2003 Because
GSK has
facie
case Abbott offered no nondiscriminatory reason
trial
and Abbott does not
now
offer in its brief
on
for its
appeal
it
evidence
that the strike
is
clear
that
to offer
B was
perform the
record, that
Abbott has no
we
Accordingly
violation occurred
Juror
was based on
See id
at
Abbotts
is
facie
unrefuted
and on
need not remand the question whether a Batson
96970 The
record persuasively demonstrates that
This Court
may therefore
Batson analysis and conclude even based on a
stated reasons
purposeful discrimination.
Id
at
at
credible reasons to advance nor
struck because of his sexual orientation
third step of the
strike of Juror
The prima
a discriminatory motive
further
established a prima
appeal any colorable neutral
explanation for the strike only one result is possible here
evidence
See United States
965 969
B was
969
for striking
Juror
B was a
cold
pretext for
n5
III
continued
face value the fact that
two
of the four proffered reasons
judicial scrutiny militates against

at
their sufficiency.
699
14
do
not hold
up under
quoting Chinchilla 874
F2d
We
must
now
Batson prohibits
Court held
considered
strikes
that the privilege of
peremptory
peremptory
strikes
based on race
not only the rights of the criminal defendant
excluded from
Allowing peremptory
because
it
their race
would
476
would
strikes
the Court
US
held
Batson
the
Supreme
at
89 Batson
but also of the individual
on
of course
Id
the basis of his race
who
at
is
87
the entire community
in the fairness of our system of
the exclusion of prospective jurors because
upon a
v Campbell
to
the Court explained were
based on race would touch
require reversal
Citing Johnson
In
At stake
undermine public confidence
Id Thus
justice.
in jury service
participating
whether
strikes in selecting a jury is subject
of the Equal Protection Clause
the guarantees
us
decide the fundamental legal question before
finding of intentional
discrimination
of
Id
Abbott urges us to avoid deciding whether
Batson applies to sexual orientation by holding
that a
prima facie showing cannot
be demonstrated because an obvious neutral reason for the challenge appears in

the record.
As we
have explained there are no obvious neutral reasons for
Abbotts strike in the record or even in Abbotts brief

rejected
no
a Batson
attempt to
attorney,
challenge
show
sexual orientation
based on sexual orientation where
discriminatory motivation
2 there was
3
no showing
there
present
F3d
at
953
that
no
bearing
we
Campbell we
counsel
made
the part of the opposing

jurors
neutral reason for the strike and
on
the subject
matter of the case
All of the factors that were absent in Campbell are
here Because the record shows
here the path
on
In
opposing counsel was aware of the
was an obvious
the jurors sexual orientation had
Campbell 92
on appeal
that there
was
took in Campbell is not available to
15
purposeful discrimination
us
at
100
Eight years later in
made on
strikes
JE
the Court extended
The Court
expansion
its
exercise their peremptory challenges to
of individuals normally subject
accord United States
Thus
if
to
JEB
While expanding Batsons ambit
the basis of gender
explained the scope of
Batson to peremptory
stated that
remove from
the venire any group or class
basis review.
rational
Santiago Martinez 58
p arties may
F3d 422
511
423
to rational basis review
sexual orientation is subject
US
9th
at
143
Cir 1995
Abbotts
strike
does
not require reversal
We
have in the past applied
In High Tech
sexual orientation
Office 895
1425
9th
F2d 563
Cir 1997 we
of Defense
and
at
in Lawrence
809
Philips
v Perry 106
F3d 1420
when upholding Department
on
the basis of sexual
Department of the Air Force 527
Air Force reservist brought due process and equal
We
considered
Texas 539
U S 653
based on
Defense Industrial Security Clearance
applied rational basis review
to her suspension from duty
woman Id
Cir 1990 and
recently in Witt
Cir 2008 an
challenges
9th
Gays
basis review to classifications
military policies that classified individuals
More
orientation
9th
574
rational
on
account
16
Supreme
and concluded
that
806
protection
of her sexual relationship
the meaning of the
2003
F3d
with a
Courts decision
because Lawrence
relied
only on substantive
due
prior substantive
F3d
821 As
at
due
process
process and not
substantive due process
challenge
for the equal
challenge
address equal
we
applied heightened
in Witt
Id
we
are
it
our
affected
We
scrutiny to the
stated that
Lawrence
declined to
and relying on Philips our pre Lawrence decision
protection,
bound
protection
did not change our level of scrutiny
continued to apply rational basis review to equal
Thus we
equal
cases but not our equal protection rules Witt 527
a result although
protection
on
protection
challenges
here to apply rational basis review to the equal
Id
at
we
821
protection
claim in the absence of a post Witt change in the law by the Supreme Court or an
en banc court
banc
Here we
between
States
See Miller
turn to the
equal protection
v Windsor 133
last
term and
this
case
is
Windsor
v Gammie
Supreme
and
335
F3d 889
89293
Courts most recent case
classifications
Ct 2675 2013
9th Cir
on
2003
en
the relationship
based on sexual orientation United
That landmark case was decided
just
dispositive of the question of the appropriate level of scrutiny in
of course did not expressly announce
applied to the equal
the level of scrutiny
protection claim at issue in that case but an express
declaration is not necessary
Lawrence presented
17
us with a nearly identical
it
we
quandary when
confronted
due
the
process claim in Witt
Just as Lawrence
omitted any explicit declaration of its level of scrutiny with respect to due process
claims regarding sexual orientation so does Windsor fail to declare what level of
scrutiny
applies with respect to such equal
it
how
have been told
Supreme Court
analyzed the
did
has refrained
Supreme Court
rather than
In Witt
heightened
to resolve the question
by
we
from
protection claims
Witt 527
by
dissecting isolated pieces of text.
F3d
at
Finally
we
looked
those cases applied heightened
test
here
we
conclude
that
539
Witt 527
F3d at
817
We
state interest to justify
US
to the cases
scrutiny
at
578
We
law
further
explained
the
harm that
internal quotation
Witt 527
F3d at
Windsor compels the same
relied
817
result
stated that
for the
scrutiny
on which Lawrence
18
have
Lawrence applied a
rationalizations
inflicted as is traditionally the case in heightened
817 quoting Lawrence
omitted
that
level of scrutiny rather than a rational basis analysis
Lawrence required a legitimate
we
the
Id
factors in determining
required under rational basis review
Texas law
816 When
considering what the Court actually
Lawrence did not consider the possible post hoc
that
at
identifying its method of analysis
precedent
looked to three
F3d
we
Nevertheless
the
Witt 527
marks
and found
that
Applying the Witt
with respect to equal
protection
due process
Lawrence compelled with respect to substantive
that
Windsor review
is
not rational basis review
In
words and
its
established a level of scrutiny for classifications
its
deed Windsor
unquestionably
higher than rational basis review
that heightened
scrutiny be applied to equal protection
In other
words Windsor
that is
requires
claims involving sexual
orientation
Examining Witts
factor
first
Windsor
possible rational bases for the law in question as
review
The Supreme Court has long
basis review
if
classifications
1961
Instead
any
imposed by the
This lowest
it
state of facts
law must be upheld under
conceived
In Williamson
looked to what the
v Lee
is
some
mind when
Optical 348
legislature
question and evaluated
rational
to justify the
Maryland 366
U S 420
conceivable
enacted the
it
rational
purpose
426
U S 483
1955
might have concluded
these hypothetical
reasons
19
law
that
law
This rule has been repeated throughout the history of modern
law
the
required for rational basis
may be
law McGowan
considers whether there
in
is
did not consider
review does not look to the actual purposes of the
level of
Congress could have had
held that a
reasonably
Lawrence
like
Id
the Court repeatedly
in enacting
at
constitutional
487
the law in
In United States
Railroad Retirement Board
that deference
post hoc
to
Fritz
449
explanations
U S 166
was
1980
the Court emphasized
central to rational
basis
review
Where
as here there are plausible reasons for Congress action our
inquiry
is
at
an
end
It
is of course constitutionally
whether
this reasoning in fact
because
this
Court has never
reasons for enacting
its
task of classifying
some
a statute
This
persons
persons for
who
on
treatment be placed
line
insisted that
legislative
decision,
body
is particularly true
articulate
where the
must necessarily engage in a process of linedrawing The
legislature
that
underlay the legislative
irrelevant
benefits
inevitably
requires
have an almost equally strong claim to favored

and the
different sides of the line,
might have been drawn
differently at
some
fact the
points is a matter for
legislative rather than judicial consideration
Id
at
stated
179
internal
that
purposes
under rational basis review it
whether the conceived
motivated the legislature.
U S 307 315
In
omitted More
citations
Supreme Court has
entirely irrelevant
is
reason for the challenged
again
for constitutional
distinction
actually
Fed Commcn Commn v Beach Commcn Inc 508
1993
Windsor
the Court evaluated
Windsor looked to
instead
the
from
of conceiving
essence
DOMAs
inquiry included a review
extensively
recently the
the
of the
of hypothetical justifications for the
law
Windsor 133
design purpose and effect.
of the legislative
House Report and
history of
restated
20
S Ct
Id
DOMA
at
at
law
2693
2689
This
Windsor quoted
the Houses conclusion
that
marriage should
Unlike in
not
be
protected
rational basis
review hypothetical reasons for
basis of the Courts inquiry
In its brief to the
Legal Advisory Group offered five
the Merits for Respondent
of Representatives
WL
at
inequality
Ct
the Bipartisan
at
The
Supreme Court
The
Courts conclusion
that
result of this
DOMAs
more fundamental
that
scrutinize Congresss actual
antithetical
actual
to the very concept
Witts
heightened
purpose and
its
conceive
purposes
at
was
the
Supreme
Windsors
of rational basis review
we
269394 emphasis
of hypothetical purposes
conclude
Id
that
unsupported
at
bases is
2693
Windsor applied
Just as Lawrence required that a legitimate state interest
21
but
careful consideration
failure to consider other
next factor also requires that
scrutiny
to consider
d a most serious
we
Windsor thus requires not
DOMAs
2013
demonstrated purpose raise
added
of
U S House
Windsor 133
inquiry
Amendment. Id
we
See Brief on
declared is to impose
it
question under the Constitutions Fifth
that
were
the Bipartisan
law
these justifications
not for other reasons like governmental efficiency.
2693 2694
2693
No 12 307
Ct 2675 2013
principal purpose,
at
enactment
Legal Advisory Group of the
2848 Windsor 133
purpose:
DOMAs
rational bases for the
distinct
267026 Windsor however looked behind
Congresss avowed
Id
from the immorality of homosexuality
justify the
harm imposed by
demanding
that
Windsor 133
purpose
As we
law
the Texas
S Ct
2693
at
emphasis
added
Witt 527
Rational basis
the challenged
presumption
despite
were
state
F3d at
is
the Court applying rational basis
See
have
their
feature of rational basis
in the Courts decisions applying
these words repeatedly
justify
Id
at
review
it
2696
would
the disparate treatment of
The
with the inequality
US
42526
applying
acted within their constitutional
laws
result in
review words
rational
at
that results
harm
power
considers
to this
or injury rarely appear
Windsor however
basis review
majority opinion
the
some inequality Due
like
from
DOMAs
effect
uses
on
eight
Windsor concerns the resulting injury and indignity and the
disadvantage inflicted
on gays and
Moreover Windsor
on gays and
McGowan 366
that state legislatures
separate occasions
a class of individuals
ordinarily unconcerned
action
Windsor requires a legitimate
817
the fact that in practice
distinctive
on
to overcome[] the disability
explained in Witt
group
by
Congresss purpose justify disparate treatment of the group.
not identify a legitimate state interest to
the
part of Windsor begins
the critical
lesbians
lesbians
133
Ct
at
2692 2693
refuses to tolerate the imposition of a
Section
of
DOMA
22
violates the equal
second
protection
class status
component
of the due process clause
the
world
by
tells
Id
DOMA
at
2694
significance
about the
status
occupied
DOMA
Under
state action
Educ 347
DOMAs
same sex
by gays and
itself
from denoting the
U S 483
494 1954
make s them
practically a brand
inferiority.
unequal.
class
Strauder
the law for
affixed
by
the
West Virginia 100
Ct
have
burdened
their lives
Id Windsors
tradition in forbidding
omitted
v Bd
Brown
citation
at
2694
omitted
DOMA
was
assertion of their
U S 303 308
that
class status
1879
Windsor
impose inequality on
be
justified
purpose
Notably absent from Windsors
presumption in favor of the
review of
constitutionality
23
of
It
separate and lesser public status
law an
gays and lesbians and send a message of second
This
great constitutional
of a class of people
Windsor 133
upon them
requires that classifications
legitimate
lesbians in our society
harm of
internal quotations
by
all
with the public message
married couples
inferiority
and
unworthy of federal
message follows our constitutional
the identification of such
that
in
those couples
tells
of government decree in visible and public ways.
concern with
is
because it
Windsor was thus concerned
government sponsored message was
by reason
us
that their otherwise valid marriages are
recognition.
sent
Windsor
DOMA
are the strong
of laws and the extremely
by some
deferential posture toward government action that are the marks of rational basis
review
under rational basis review it
advantages
487
Law 695
Erwin Chemerinsky Constitutional
and disadvantages
Windsors
unmistakable
new
of the
failure to afford this
invalid for
effect to disparage
and
no
Windsor
whom
injure those
balancing
is
not the
work
courts to balance the
Lee Optical 348
explicitly
harm or
legitimate
protect in personhood and dignity.
Windsors
requirement.
After all
presumption of validity however
of the governments interest against the
is
ed 2013
for the legislature not the
is
In its parting sentences
federal statute
4th
133
announces
at
is
balancing
injury to gays and lesbians The
purpose overcomes
the State
S Ct
its
US
at
by
2696
its
the purpose and
marriage laws sought to
emphasis
added
of rational basis review
In analyzing its final and least important factor Witt stated that Lawrence
must have applied heightened
F3d
scrutiny cases
Witt 527
reasoning
few cases
cites
examining in
Court
that
at
817
instead
detail the inequality
cites are
Moreno 413
scrutiny because
Romer
U S 528
Lawrence did not
cite
IV
cited and relied
on
heightened
the central portion of Windsors
scrutinizing Congresss actual purposes and
Among
imposed by the law
v Evans 517
1973
Part
it
U S 620
and Lawrence
Romer a
rational
24
1996
the cases that the
Department of Agriculture
In Witt
basis case
we
thought
Witt 527
it
noteworthy
F3d at
817 The
citation
to
Lawrence
despite
Moreno however
that
significant
applied a
more
because the Court recognized
searching
form
Court has similarly acknowledged
See Mountain
scrutiny.
F2d 593
599
Water
9th Cir
Co v
1990
have since held applied heightened
that
Lawrence
Moreno
Montana Dept
Further the Court
scrutiny
of
Pub Serv
cases but nevertheless Lawrence
Because Windsor
heightened
relies
scrutiny
on one
case applying
F3d
is a heightened
rational basis
Witts final factor does not decisively
other but leans in favor of applying heightened
At a minimum
something more than
Windsor requires
orientation
we
applying
traditional
that
when
at
Regulation
at
816 As we
scrutiny
stated
in equal
scrutiny case
and two cases applying
support one side or the
scrutiny
the Witt factors Windsor scrutiny requires
rational
basis review.
state action discriminates
must examine
US
Lawrence which we
in Witt Lawrence did not resolve whether to apply heightened
protection
539
applied heightened
cited
Witt 527
in
of rational basis review,
purporting to apply simple rational basis review
580 Our
919
Moreno
is
its actual
Witt 527
on
F3d at
813
the basis of sexual
purposes and carefully consider the
resulting inequality to ensure that our most fundamental institutions neither send
nor reinforce messages of stigma or second class status
heightened
scrutiny
Our
earlier cases applying rational
25
In short Windsor requires
basis review to
based on sexual orientation cannot be reconciled with Windsor
classifications
F3d
Miller 335
authority
we now
In
tells
us
527
sum
how
89293 Because we
hold
F3d
at
we
that
Windsor
protection
that
scrutiny applies to
See Miller 335
reexamine our
Under
that analysis
scrutiny to classifications
of due process
be any question
controlling higher
F3d at
89293
see
81617 821
to interpret
of equal
for purposes
Windsors heightened
Windsor requires
to apply heightened
purposes
that
bound by
are
classifications
also Witt
at
See
we
F3d
at
that
816 821 Thus
to rational basis review.
JE
same
for
conclusion
no
there can
gays and lesbians are no longer a group or
individuals normally subject
by Windsor
are required
Lawrence previously reached
Witt 527
precedents and Witt
prior
longer
class of
B 511 U S
at
143
IV
A
Having established
on
sexual orientation
classification
must
now
See
JE
scrutiny
is
scrutiny applies to classifications
determine whether Batson
or group of individuals
whether heightened
necessary
we
that heightened
In
JE B
is
applicable to that
the Court did not state definitively
sufficient to warrant Batsons protection
B 511 U S
at
136
n6
26
based
143 The
Court explained
or merely
that
striking potential
community and
an appearance
womens
at
140
orientation
protection
in
by
strikes
scrutiny
on
we
send a message that
state actors
that classifications
to heightened
womens
Americans
those of African
women
unqualified
on
Id
to decide important
at
142
With
the basis of sexual
must answer whether equal
to discrimination against
its
women As
the
We
Supreme Court
experiences differed significantly
JE B
warrant the protections
For
gender based
took Batson a case about the use of race in jury selection and applied
acknowledged
was
and creates
does
that it
principles
analysis
given
forbids striking a juror
JEB
the
the exclusion of an entire class of
persons could disagree.
reasonable
mind and
are subject
litigants
added that when viewed against the long history of
are presumed
upon which
JE B. s concerns
African
It
the
reinforces stereotypes
it
system condones
exclusion from jury service
questions
its
the basis of their gender harms
the individual jurors because
certain individuals
conclude
on
that the judicial
Id
individuals
jurors
of
511
US
at
13536 The Court
Batson womens
from
the actual
a history of exclusion from jury service
27
the experiences of
did not require that to
experiences had to be identical
Americans Id Instead what remained
willingness to reason
from
constant
experiences
to
in the Courts
of the
and the prevalence
group
of
invidious group stereotypes led the Court to conclude
to strikes
on
the basis of gender
from the unique circumstances
Gays and
Id
at
13134 140 Here
Even
important institutions of self governance
have acknowledged
discrimination
Canby
scrutiny to classifications
that
attention
in
Gays and
part
federal
government
local
professional licensing
Id
In
been
1985
fired
sexuality
the
from
J dissenting
F2d
In the
first
half of the twentieth
at
573
Witt 527
infiltration
significant
F3d at
82425
century public
of the federal
month
and
state
a guidance
v Mad
in the
J Klarman From
was
the
not limited to the
governments also excluded homosexuals
boards often revoked
her job as
Michael
Discrimination in employment
Supreme Court denied
Rowland
on
lesbians were dismissed from civilian employment
2013
must reason
our prior cases that rejected
895
federal government at a rate of sixty per
Closet to the Altar
we
excluded from the most
Gays
was preoccupied with homosexual
government
also
gay and lesbian individuals have experienced
See High Tech
J dissenting
Batson should extend
of gays and lesbians in our society
lesbians have been systematically
applying heightened
that
licenses
certiorari in
on
account
of homosexuality
case in which
woman
counselor in a public school because
River Local
Sch Dist 470
and
U S 1009
had
of her
1985 Brennan
from denial of certiorari Indeed gays and lesbians were thought to
28
be so contrary to our conception
of citizenship that they were
under a provision of our immigration laws
Naturalization
INS
1999
about
N
It
v INS 387
Immigration and
afflicted with
U S 118 120
Eskridge
Gaylaw
Challenging
only recently that gay
their sexuality
1967
in the
men
course of
Straight State
Strikes exercised
tradition of treating
and
the Apartheid
women
treats
on
not until
their military service
right to
As one
on
rites
and rituals They
13334
be open
scholar put it
continue
Margot
to participate in perfecting
of a characteristic
this deplorable
the individual
who
democracy
and guarding our
serve
29
to
do with
has been
that our judicial
deprive individuals
that has nothing
in our
participation
They
gays and lesbians differently
account
1990
2009
struck the litigants other members of the venire and the public
justice
was
It
of the Closet
gained the
gays and lesbians as undeserving of
nations most cherished
opportunity
psychopathic
the twentieth century gays and lesbians were the anticitizen.
Canaday The
system
inadmissible
to interpret that category as including gays and lesbians
ceased
is
throughout
to exclude individuals
tell
William
INS
See Boutilier
personality.
that the
Service
that required the
made
of the
ideals of
their fitness to
Windsors
reasoning reinforces the constitutional
individuals are not excluded
their sexual orientation
and
from
Windsor 133
the honor and privilege of jury duty
in the democratic process.
lesbian individuals
means
controversies that affect
peremptory
this civic
is
strikes
of
as well as rights enhance the dignity
S Ct at
2694
Jury service
their
most
significant
Powers 499
US
of articulating their values
their lives as well as the lives
is
For most
the most important responsibilities of an American citizen
participate
that
our most fundamental institutions because
Responsibilities
integrity of the person.
urgency of ensuring
at
citizens
opportunity
407
It
one of
to
gives gay and
and a voice in resolving
of all others
To
because of assumptions based on sexual orientation
allow
is to
revoke
responsibility demeaning the dignity of the individual and threatening
the impartiality of the judicial system
Gays and
manner as
lie
lesbians
women
may
not have been excluded from juries in the
and African Americans but our
behind Batson and
JEB requires
that
we
translation
of the principles
as such because
gay resulted in
L J 769
for
most of the history of
significant discrimination
81436
2002 The
that
apply the same principles to the
unique experiences of gays and lesbians Gays and lesbians did not
themselves
same open
this
identify
country being openly
See Kenji Yoshino Covering 111 Yale
machineries of discrimination against
30
gay
individuals were such that explicit exclusion of gay individuals
homosexuality
Id
at
814
juries
was
relatively
recent
JE
change occurred
in
1985
lesbians
Klarman From
who
this
number
the Closet at
imprisonment or exclusion from
case of
gender
law forbids It
civil
the Court noted that
131
To
Being out about ones
illustrate
how
recently the
their
to
75
percent
of
have indicated gays and
openness sometimes through
society
of strikes based
on
litigants
and the community from
sexual orientation because as in the
to allow such strikes risks perpetuating the very stereotypes that the
is well
known
community which sway
that prejudices
some cases
protection
which others enjoy. MillerEl
and
which
to deny to persons of those classes the full
quoting Strauder
These stereotypes
often exist against particular
the judgment of jurors and
operate in
237 2005
at
increased
Batson must also protect potential jurors
harm
because womens participation
197 As we
were out were punished for
the serious dignitary
JE
only one quarter of Americans reported knowing
someone who was gay By 2000
Americans
B 511 U S
phenomenon
sexuality is also a relatively recent
in the
In
based on gender were a recent phenomenon
strikes
on
was unspeakable.
was unnecessary
100
US
their pernicious
at
Dretke
309
therefore
enjoyment of
II 545
internal quotation
effects are not
31
MillerEl
classes
U S 231
marks
always known
to
that
omitted
us
Prejudice
from
rises not
insensitivity
from malice or
by simple want
caused
some
instinctive
some
respects from ourselves.
531
U S 356
mechanism
374 2001
animus alone
hostile
of Trustees
Kennedy
may result
of
who
Univ
J concurring
appear to be
of
Stereotypes
different
Alabama
as well
or from
of careful rational reflection
to guard against people
Bd
It
Garrett
of gays and
lesbians depict them as wealthy and promiscuous and as disease vectors
molesters Perry
2010
Schwarzenegger 704
Empirical research
gays and lesbians
Jennifer
Standard
As
on
by
this
F Supp
show
2d 921 98283
toward
courtroom dynamics
of Sexual Orientation in the
93
N D Cal
that discriminatory attitudes
significant role in
or child
See
Courtroom A Double
2000
case permitting a
strike
the false message that gays and lesbians could not be trusted to reason
issues of great import to the
attitudes
these stereotypes
or the nation
JEB
The
Strikes based
in
role in civic
1994 The
life
on
and biases of gays and lesbians
Constitution cannot countenance
toward gays and lesbians are rapidly changing
toward womens
Court decided
community
notions of the identities preferences
and perpetuate
True
attitudes
and play a
of Homosexuality
illustrated
preconceived
reinforce
persist
has begun to
Hill The Effects
39 2 J
would send
fairly
in
just as
had changed by the time the Supreme
central premise of
JE
B however
was
that the
continued
32
state sponsored
JE B
prejudice.
The
group stereotypes
511
US
at
rooted
in and
of stereotypes
Batson applies to peremptory
historical
128
history of exclusion of gays and lesbians
and the pervasiveness
of
reflective
strikes
from
democratic institutions
about the group leads us to conclude
that
B
Abbott urges us to proceed with caution
sensitivities
and privacy
sexual orientation
extended
Wheeler
We
in light of the significant
Batson to
interests at stake in applying
People
based on
agree that as the California Court of Appeal put
protection the state equivalent of
Batson
No one should be outed in order to take part in the civic
duty.
strikes
it
when
to gays and lesbians
enterprise which is jury
Garcia 92 Cal Rptr 2d 339 347 Cal Ct
App 2000
For gays
and lesbians keeping ones sexual orientation private has long been a strategy
avoiding
even
ones
the ramifications
potential
for
if
that
for
disowned by friends and family or
accompanied
open acknowledgment of
most of the twentieth century and sometimes even
continued
courtroom should not be a

even
job
physical danger
sexual orientation
loss being
it
such
prejudicial
site for ratify
ing and
views are on the decline
33
reinforc ing prejudicial views,
JE
B 511 U S
at
140
For some individuals being forced to announce
today
their sexuality
risks
intruding into the intimate process of selfdiscovery that is coming out, a process
that
can be
out for
at
many
once affirming and emotionally fraught
gays and lesbians
dignity and identity
vital
group
is
that
life defining
when
Deciding
part of this process and
is
and
how
should not be
it
has long been discriminated
moment
and to
co opted
against
coming
Equally important
of celebrating ones
whom
one comes out
in the
name
the constitutional
is a
of affording
rights to
which
it
entitled
These concerns merit careful consideration
conclusion
on
that the Constitution necessitates
sexual orientation
Concerns
but they
do
not warrant the
permitting peremptory strikes based
that applying
Batson to sexual orientation will
jeopardize the privacy of gay and lesbian prospective jurors can
prudent courtroom procedure
orientation
orientation
of topics
creates
no
A Batson
by
when
to
they are asked sensitive questions
Further applying Batson to
strikes
based on sexual
requirement that prospective jurors reveal their sexual
challenge
jurors sexual orientation
Californias successful
allayed
Courts can and already do employ procedures
protect the privacy of prospective jurors
on any number
be
was
would be
established
application
cognizable only once a prospective
voluntarily and
of Wheeler
34
on
the record
protections to sexual orientation
for
the past thirteen years illustrates that problems with administration
overcome
even in a large
population
of court users
judicial
system
that
comes
in contact
See Garcia 92 Cal Rptr 2d
at
can be
with a diverse
348
V
Abbott contends
that
any exclusion of a
juror in violation of
Batson would
have been harmless because none of GSKs claims should have been submitted to
the jury
It
asserts that there
was
not sufficient evidence
to support any of those
claims
We
have held
that
Batson claims, Turner
also
Gray
t here
no
harmless error analysis with respect to
F3d
Marshall 121
Mississippi 481
impartial adjudicator be
is
U S 648
668 1987
judge or jury
it
basic that their infraction can never
1248 1254
be
among
is
n3
9th
Cir 1997
see
holding that the right to an
those constitutional
rights so
treated as harmless error There are
two
reasons for this
First
different
it
impossible to determine whether a jury verdict
had the jury been
U S 254 263
criteria
is
1986
constitutionally
or has been exposed
the conviction
because the
hen a
petit
selected
See Vasquez
jury has been selected
to prejudicial publicity
we
effect of the violation cannot
35
would have been
Hillery
474
upon improper
have required reversal of
be ascertained.
Second
even
this
if
were possible to find
it
would
not render the error harmless as the
violation of Batson
In
far greater than
is
v Ohio 499
Powers
defendant
may object
to the
and the excluded jurors
Court explained
that a
as well as the parties
suffers
that a jury verdict
a profound
Powers 499
US
race based
are not of the
harm from
simply the
U S 409
1991
had been unaffected by the error
exclusion of jurors even
same race Id
at
415
held that a
the defendant
if
In so holding the
Batson violation injures the unconstitutionally
venireperson excluded from jury service
by
41314 Moreover
juror in
the verdict
Supreme Court
the
personal humiliation heightened
at
upon
effect
excluding
stricken juror
because of race
public character.
its
a Batson violation undermines the
integrity of the entire trial
The
wrongful exclusion of a
challenge
outset
is
constitutional
of the proceedings
entire jury
panel
casts
juror
by
a race based peremptory
violation committed in open court at the
The
overt
wrong
often apparent
doubt over the obligation
to the
of the parties the
jury and indeed the court to adhere to the law throughout the
the
cause The
introduction
voir dire phase of the
to the substantive factual
influence of the voir dire process

course of the
Powers 499
stated
US
trial
at
trial
412
represents
the jurors
and legal issues
may persist
trial
in a
of
first
case The
through the whole
proceedings
internal
quotation
omitted
In
that discrimination in the selection of jurors casts
the judicial process and may pervade
all
Powers
the Court further
doubt on the
integrity of
the proceedings that follow.
36
Id
at
411
413
see also
harm to
JE B
the litigants the
excluded from
by
511
the States
the inevitable
US
at
loss of confidence
we do
Batson
is
on Nevius
decided
engenders.
so pervasive
this
v Gonzalez Largo 436
F2d 463
JE B
before Powers and
where the challenged
juror
The community
is
harmed
of invidious group stereotypes
Because the
and
effect of excluding
cannot be deemed harmless and
we
citing
F Appx
is
stated that
been allowed to go to the jury
for various
to accept
1988
9th
alternate
F2d
Cir 2011
In Nevius
a Batson
Nevius 852
harmless because
an unpublished disposition
819 821
9th Cir
would have been an
argues that the Batson error
Even were we
it
rule
468
called to serve as a juror in any event
evidence
wrongfully
are
such violations to harmless error review
not subject
v Sumner 852
who
causes
in our judicial system that state sanctioned
Abbott urges an exception to
United States
process
in the perpetuation
participation
in jury selection
the individual jurors
in the judicial
discrimination in the courtroom
therefore
Discrimination
community and
participation
juror in violation of
140
violation
who would
at
is
harmless
not have been
Abbott
none of the claims should have
insufficiency
Abbotts harmlessness exception
37
which was
468 Here
reasons including
apply here
that relies
it
of
would
not
As
agreed by the parties the contract claim
Abbott argues
with
contract
first
GSK
because
that contract contained
was evidence however from which
injur ed]
have
GSKs
Such proof
impact
that
right to receive
an implied covenant
See 511
reject ion
harm
rely
of GSKs
As
on them
Abbotts
fail
We
the contract
8
New York
award
is
by
law
have considered
Thus
even
if
was meant
to
Co 773
premised on the jury[
and
the Batson violation
court properly found that
had
that the contracts
to support enforcement of the limitationof liability
as a matter of
There
law to find a breach of
theories involving tortious gross negligence
the jury findings were tainted
its
conduct
v Jennifer Realty
second argument
clause bars any damages
In conclusion the district
does not
under
in
as to price
of the contract, and
the fruits
W 232nd Owners Corp
N E 2d 496 500 N Y 2002

limitationof liability
no agreement
a jury could find that Abbotts
sufficient
is
New York law
governed by
did not violate any implied covenant
conduct
that its
is
GSKs
intent to
we
clause
cannot
contract
claim
Batson violations were subject to
and rejected Abbotts other arguments with regard to
claim
Abbott has argued only
that structural
claim should have gone to the jury

implied covenant
submitting the
claim
UTPA
we
and
As we
hold to the contrary with regard
need not consider
antitrust
error does not apply because
whether the
claims to the jury
38
district
no
to the
court erred in
harmless error analysis where the losing party should have prevailed as a matter of
law and no jury verdict should have been rendered the exclusion of a juror in
violation of Batson
case
Therefore
was
we
not harmless here as a jury
remand
for
was
necessary
to resolve the
a new
trial
VI
We
hold
and
orientation
that heightened
that
violation occurred
scrutiny
Batson applies to
here
this case
applies to classifications based
strikes
on
that
on
sexual
basis Because a Batson
must be remanded for a new
trial
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Our
holding that the contract claim does not
Abbotts sole contention

granted
its
not address
50 b
motion
on
for
direct
appeal
fail
as a matter of law resolves
that the district
court should have
judgment as a matter of law on
GSKs remaining claim on cross appeal
inconsistent with the jurys findings
we remand
as
findings
39
this
that the
for a
new
claim
UTPA
trial
We
need
verdict
and
new
was
COUNSEL LISTING
Daniel
Levin
argued
Hamilton Kathryn
California Krista
F Hurst
Steffen
LLP
Lisa
Samuel
A Eidman
Enns San
S Park
Blatt
DC
Werner
for
Munger
Tolles
A Campbell
N Senator
Olson
LLP
Jacob
Strawn
Keith
RD
Los Angeles
Strawn
LLP
LLP
Charles
Loshin Winston
James
Klein
Strawn
Defendant Appellant CrossAppellee
F Wiles
Christopher Beatty
California Sarah
Weinberger Stuart
Chicago IL Winston
argued Arnold
argued Alexander
Francisco California Winston
Johnson Matthew
Washington
Jeffrey
Porter
Carlos
Andrew
LLP
Washington
D C Brian J Hennigan
V Stockinger
A
R Moreno
Trevor
Ow
Manella
Harris Arnold
Irell
Porter
LLP
Lillie
LLP
Washington
Los Angeles
DC
for Plaintiff
Appellee CrossAppellant
Shelbi
D Day Tara L
Education
Borelli Jon
Fund Inc Los Angeles
Davidson Lambda Legal Defense and
California for
40
Amicus Curiae
Lake James
Perriguey
LawWorksLLC
1906
SW
Portland
T
F
Madison
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
skype
OTLA
www
Street
97205
lawworks com
lagojaime
Guardian
of Civil Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT
CONSERVE RESOURCES
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
1 22 2014 7 38 24
Subject
Re
Thank
PM
11 17357 pdf
you
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
On
Sheila
Potter
Jan 22
Trial Counsel
2014
of
at
Justice
2 09 PM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
2014
01 20 11 17357
wrote
http
cdn
11 17357
Lake
Law
ca9
James H
SW
503
503
opinions
Perriguey
Madison
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
datastore
LLC
Portland
T
gov
pdf
Works
1906
uscourts
law
Guardian
PLEASE DON
works
of
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
PRINT
503
www
law
Justice
CONSERVE
RESOURCES
works
com
pdf
lake
law
works
com
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
1 22 2014 10 09 47
Subject
RE
Thank
Wow
you
From
Lake
Sent
Wednesday
To
Potter
Subject
http
PM
11 17357 pdf
Perriguey
Sheila
11 17357
cdn
ca9
mailto
January
22
lake
law
2014
2 09 PM
works
com
H
pdf
uscourts
gov
datastore
opinions
2014
01 20 11 17357
pdf
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
1 22 2014 10 11 42
Subject
Re
Sheila
H
PM
11 17357 pdf
Hi Sheila
Can you
me
give
Lake James
a ring on
my
503 803 5184
cell
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
and attachments
On
Jan 22
2014
Thank you
Wow
From
Sent
To
Lake
Potter
10 09
Perriguey
Wednesday
Subject
http
at
PM
Potter
mailto lake
January 22
Sheila
law works
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
com
2014 2 09 PM
Sheila
11 17357 pdf
cdn ca9 uscourts gov datastore opinions 2014 01 20 11 17357 pdf
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
1 22 2014 10 39 59
Subject
Fwd
www
http
Date
To
January 22
2014
at
Fwd
I just
bwnlaw
10 22 16
Email
PM
Marriage equality
message
Bear Wilner Nugent
Subject
law works com
Begin forwarded
From
Sheila
lake
gmail
com
PM PST
law works com
Marriage equality
sent
Wishing you well
Bear
Bear Wilner
Counselor
620
SW
Nugent
Law LLC
Attorney at
5th Avenue
Suite 1008
Portland
503 351
OR 97204
BEAR
bwnlaw
gmail
com
Begin forwarded
From
Date
To
message
Bear Wilner Nugent

January 22
ellen
Subject
2014
rosenblum
at
bwnlaw
10 07 02
gmail
com
PM PST
doj state or us
ellen
rosenblum
doj state or us
Marriage equality
Dear Attorney General Rosenblum
You know
support
your counterpart
and respect you immensely
Mark
That
Herring in Virginia in the spirit
is
why
of
am
commending to you
warm encouragement and
this
course of action taken
not critique
by
m roanoke
http
Please
com news
article
Bear Wilner
Bear Wilner
Counselor
SW
Nugent
Nugent
Attorney at
5th Avenue
Suite 1008
Portland
503 351
bwnlaw
83eb 11e3 9b53 001a4bcf6878
consider this seriously in the appropriate
Wishing you well
620
621761a8
OR 97204
BEAR
gmail
com
Law LLC
state
or federal case
html
mode jqm
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
1 22 2014 10 40 40
PM
Subject
Judge Consolidates
Oregon Gay Marriage Lawsuits
http
abcnews
http
www
go com
Sheila
story id
law works com
21631134
ABC News
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
1 24 2014 8 17 19
Subject
Geiger et al
Sheila
H
AM
Hi Sheila
Do
you have
am concerned
time for a phone

about
discovery
cutoff
available
until
the
I
have
we
joint
brief with Rummel
Lea
Ann
either this afternoon
with the
a meeting
judge
in Salem
related
or Monday
to
from 10 until
Ms
about
Middleton
12 ish and
this week
s question
then
s hearing
about
am generally
6 pm
Also
Thanks
call
dialogue
are considering
whether
to
plaintiffs
withdraw
who
our motion for summary judgment
are supervised
by adults
and
filing
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 24 2014 8 22 31
Subject
Re
do
Probably mid
still
Deputy
Chief
AM
Geiger et al
to
late
sorting themselves
Sheila
Sheila
afternoon
out
would
Definitely
work
by the
best
end
of
for me
although
the
dorsayindianlaw
com
the
day s meetings
are
day
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jan 24
2014
of
at
Justice
8 15 AM
Lea
Ann
Easton
LEaston
wrote
Hi Sheila
Do
I
you have
time for a phone
am concerned
about
discovery
cutoff
available
until
Also
joint
we
have
Ann
call
dialogue
a meeting
either this afternoon
with the
in Salem
judge
related
from 10 until
or Monday
to
Ms
about
Middleton
12 ish and
then
this week
s question
s hearing
about
am generally
6 pm
are considering
brief with Rummel
Thanks
Lea
the
whether
plaintiffs
to
who
withdraw
are supervised
by adults
and
filing
From
Potter
To
Johnson
Sheila
H
R
Thomas
misaak
Jr
Perkins Coie
com
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
com
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
com
PM
Sent
1 27 2014 4 18 30
Subject
Rummell complaint and answer
Counsel
I
our answer is
due
officials
who
time to
complaint
to
believe
throw
the
will
can
Sheila
already
brakes
MSJ response
But
town a lot
and
in any sooner
need
on
Feb
tell
and
review
that
in any way
due
and
to
m going
we
to
travel
and
need
re working
the people who need to read

outrank me
By
like
a lot
will
the
comment
one
hard
it
and
May we
schedules
the
length
more
and
week
of
and
the
for that
already
senior state
density of
the
review
starting
to
This
work
think about it
are going to
have an extra week
and if
I
isn t
on our
be out of
can get it
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
1 27 2014 4 20 32
Subject
RE
Thomas
Sheila
Perkins Coie
Jr
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
PM
Sheila
No
issues with this
Unless Jennifer or Misha chimes
in
with any reason
why
wrong
Best regards
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
Monday
Johnson
Subject
com
perkinscoie
mailto sheila
Thomas R
doj state or us
potter
2014 4 19 PM
January 27
Jr
Coie
Perkins
Rummell complaint
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
and answer
Counsel
I
answer
believe our
time to review and

to need one more
and already
due Feb 5 and due to the
is
comment and
week
starting to
for that review
work on
our
are going to be out of town a lot

get
in
it
any sooner
the length
and
schedules of the senior
and density of the complaint
This isn
MSJ
travel
can already
to throw the brakes on in any
response
outrank
who
But the people
me By
have an
it
who
that I
tell
way we
need to read
May we
a lot
like
ocials
state
re
need
will
m going
working hard
and think about
extra
week and
if
it
can
will
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
the contents conf
that
you have received
idential
this
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
any transaction
or
with
Treasury
Coie LLP to be used

matter addressed
herein
or
Department
Revenue Code
any attachments
and IRS
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
NOTICE
advise
This communication
the sender
contents
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Isaak
To
Johnson
Sent
1 27 2014 4 23
Subject
RE
wouldn
dare
Misha Isaak
Perkins
Coie
R Jr
32 PM
Thomas
Perkins Coie
Potter
Sheila
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
he s wrong
that
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Sent
To
Tom
tell
Misha
Thomas R
Johnson
Monday
Potter
Subject
Jr
Sheila
Coie
Perkins
2014 4 21 PM
January 27
Isaak
Misha
Coie
Perkins
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
and answer
Sheila
No
issues with this
in
with any reason
why
wrong
Best regards
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
Monday
Johnson
Subject
com
mailto sheila
Thomas R
potter
doj state or us
2014 4 19 PM
January 27
Jr
Perkins
Rummell complaint
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
and answer
Counsel
I
answer
believe our
time to review and

to need one more
and already
is
comment and
week
starting to
for that review
work on

get
in
it
any sooner
the length
our
and
This isn
MSJ
travel
can already
response
outrank
But the people
me By
like
a lot
who
ocials
state
way we
need to read
May we
tell
have an
it
re
who
that I
will
m going
working hard
and think about
extra
need
week and
if
it
can
will
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
the message
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
To
H
Perkins Coie
Sent
1 27 2014 4 34 02
Subject
RE
Ha
Tom
is
From
Isaak
Sent
Monday
To
RE
wouldn
PHONE
Thomas
From
Johnson
Monday
Potter
JMiddleton
Subject
give
Coie
2014
Jr
tell
Tom
jjlslaw
com
you that
Perkins
that
Coie
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
4 24 PM
and
Coie
Potter
Sheila
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
answer
he s wrong
LLP
2086
Thomas
January
Sheila
Jr
Perkins
27
2014
4 21 PM
jjlslaw
RE
will
complaint
Perkins
727
Sent
To
27
Rummell
dare
503
Perkins
January
Misha Isaak
JMiddleton
by you
Misha
Johnson
Subject
Perkins Coie
Jr
pretty scary
okay
Jennifer
Thomas
Johnson
PM
Isaak
Misha
com mailto
Rummell
Coie
Perkins
JMiddleton
complaint
and
Coie
jjlslaw
com
answer
Sheila
No
issues
Unless
Best
with this
Jennifer
or Misha chimes
in with any reason
why
m wrong
regards
Tom
Thomas
1120
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
LLP
4128
2176
8918
2176
From
Potter
Sent
Monday
To
Coie
Floor
Portland
FAX
Perkins
Street
Sheila
Subject
mailto
January
Johnson
JMiddleton
Thomas
jjlslaw
Rummell
com mailto
27
sheila
2014
Jr
complaint
potter
doj state
com
or us
4 19 PM
Perkins
com mailto
Coie
JMiddleton
and
Isaak
jjlslaw
Misha
Perkins
Coie
com
answer
Counsel
I
our answer is
due
officials
believe
who
time to
complaint
to
throw
MSJ
town
can
the
need
already
brakes
response
a lot
will
But
and
in any sooner
on
the
tell
and
review
that
people
me
who
By
due
and
to
we
need
to
like
the
travel
comment
m going
in any way
outrank
I
Feb
to
and
need
re working
read
it
a lot
one
hard
and
May we
schedules
the
length
more
and
think
have
of
week
senior state
density of
for that
already
about
the
and
it
an extra
starting
to
are going
week
the
review
and
if
This
work
to
I
isn t
on our
be out
can
get
of
it
will
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
that
information
applicable
you have
law
If
received
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
by
reply e mail
attachments
IRS
keep
CIRCULAR
230
regulations
contained
Perkins
the
contents
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
received
and
it
and
ensure
compliance
unless
immediately
delete
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
message
and
herein
have
To
inform you that
avoiding
confidential
and
any
from your system
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Jennifer
To
Potter
Sent
1 27 2014 4 37 22
Subject
RE
Jennifer
Street
Eugene
OR 97401
Thomas
Isaak
This message
NOTICE
Sent
pre y scary
Isaak
Misha
Monday
Johnson
Subject
wouldn
contain
will give
you
communications
confidential
please delete
doj state or us
potter
Perkins
January 27
and
it
notify
the sender
1 27 2014 4 34 PM
that
Thomas R
Jr
Coie
dare
Tom
tell
that
mailto
misaak
com
perkinscoie
2014 4 24 PM
Perkins
Misha Isaak
Coie
Potter Sheila
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
and answer
he s wrong
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Sent
sheila
may
okay by you
Jennifer
From
Sheila
Ha Tom is
Johnson
Monday
Potter
Subject
Thomas R
January 27
Sheila
Isaak
Jr
Coie
Perkins
2014 4 21 PM
Misha
Perkins
Coie
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
and answer
Sheila
issues with this
in
with any reason
Best regards
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
CELL
Jr
Perkins Coie
Johnson
683 2506
Potter
No
To
Coie
1050
Ste
CONFIDENTIALITY
To
Perkins
PM
PC
Schaller
975 Oak
If
Misha
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
me
Fine by
541
Middleton
Sheila
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
why
wrong
com
protected
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Monday
Johnson
Subject
mailto sheila
Thomas R
doj state or us
potter
2014 4 19 PM
January 27
Jr
Coie
Perkins
Rummell complaint
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
and answer
Counsel
I
answer
believe our
time to review and

to need one more
and already
is
comment and
week
starting to
for that review
work on
our

get
in
it
any sooner
the length
This isn
MSJ
and
travel
a lot
like
it
who
that I
tell
way we
who need to read

May we have an
But the people
me By
ocials
state
can already
response
outrank
re
need
will
m going
working hard
and think about
extra
week and
if
it
can
will
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Middleton
Jennifer
Sent
1 27 2014 4 39 24
Subject
RE
Thank
you all
From
Jennifer
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Thomas
Jr
Perkins Coie
Johnson
so much
Middleton
January
Sheila
RE
Misha
PM
mailto
27
2014
Misha
Rummell
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
4 37 PM
Perkins
complaint
and
Coie
Isaak
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Johnson
answer
Fine by me
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson
Johnson
975
Street
Oak
Eugene
541
OR
683
Schaller
Ste
97401
2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
attorney
privilege
notify
client
the
Tom
Sheila
is
From
Isaak
Sent
Monday
RE
potter
Thomas
From
Johnson
Monday
Potter
JMiddleton
27
received
doj state
confidential
this message
communications
in error
or us mailto
sheila
you that
tell
Tom
that
Coie
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
4 24 PM
Perkins
complaint
Coie
JMiddleton
and
Potter
jjlslaw
Sheila
com
answer
he s wrong
LLP
2086
Thomas
January
Sheila
jjlslaw
RE
give
Coie
2014
Jr
Perkins
727
Sent
will
com mailto
Rummell
dare
503
Perkins
January
Misha Isaak
Subject
may contain
you have
by you
jjlslaw
Subject
To
sheila
Misha
Johnson
JMiddleton
PHONE
pretty scary
okay
wouldn
message
If
4 34 PM
Jennifer
To
This
Jr
Perkins
27
2014
4 21 PM
Isaak
Misha
com mailto
Rummell
complaint
Coie
Perkins
JMiddleton
and
Coie
jjlslaw
com
answer
Sheila
No
issues
Unless
Best
with this
Jennifer
or Misha chimes
in with any reason
regards
Tom
Thomas
1120
Tenth
Johnson
N W
Couch
PHONE
CELL
FAX
Perkins
Street
Floor
Portland
OR
503
503
503
protected
please delete
it
sender
Potter
1 27 2014
Ha
PC
1050
97209
727
914
346
2176
8918
2176
4128
Coie
LLP
why
m wrong
potter
doj state
or us
by the
and
E MAIL
From
Potter
Sent
Monday
To
Sheila
Subject
mailto
January
Johnson
JMiddleton
Thomas
jjlslaw
Rummell
com mailto
27
sheila
2014
Jr
complaint
potter
doj state
com
or us
4 19 PM
Perkins
com mailto
Coie
JMiddleton
and
Isaak
jjlslaw
Misha
Perkins
Coie
com
answer
Counsel
I
our answer is
due
officials
believe
who
time to
complaint
to
throw
MSJ
town
can
the
already
But
and
any sooner
need
brakes
response
a lot
will
on
the
Feb
tell
and
review
that
people
me
who
By
to
we
need
travel
to
and
need
re working
to
like
the
comment
m going
in any way
outrank
due
and
read
a lot
it
one
and
length
more
hard
May we
schedules
the
and
think
have
of
week
about
senior state
density of
for that
already
to
are going
week
and
the
review
starting
it
an extra
the
and
if
This
work
to
isn t
on our
be out
can
get
of
it
in
will
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
attachments
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
IRS
NOTICE
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Katharine
Sent
1 30 2014 4 56 26
Subject
Geiger
intended
for
including
specific
and are hereby
To comply
communication
purpose
of
avoiding
that
communication
is strictly
it
may
and purpose
any attachments
we
protected
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any

not intended
is
any transaction
party
is
to another
contain
and
IRS regulations
with
including
recommending
this
notified
Notice 2
Sheila
any attachments
individual
you should delete
recipient
attachments
Potter
Rummel
This communication
Notice
VON TER STEGGE

PM
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
Kate and Sheila
This afternoon
upcoming
filings
Lake and
in
possible
and as such
required
and have
Will
you please
let
Lea Ann
met
with Jennifer Middleton
we
believe
me know
if
that
your
a motion
We
cases
clients
to Judge
and
Tom
Johnson
agreed that
we need an
opportunities to review
attorneys can submit
Thank you
our consolidated
extra
week
we
in
Misha Issac and

Kevin Diaz to
want to
try
talk
about the
to coordinate our briefings as
order to work through

the various
much as
levels of approvals
etc
are amendable to this request so the consolidated cooperative
McShane
happy
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
1 30 2014 5 56 12
Subject
Re
No
problem
On
Thursday
Works
Geiger
January 30
2014
PM
Rummel
Lea Ann Easton
including
and purpose

disclosure
for the County
This communication
Notice
Sheila
LEaston
may
any attachments
and
is
protected
contain privileged
by law
If
you are not the
wrote
or con
fidential
notified
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
copying
com
dorsayindianlaw
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
avoiding
including
penalties
any transaction
with
IRS
we
regulations
any attachments
under the
or matter addressed
is
Revenue
Internal
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
Kate and Sheila
This afternoon
upcoming
Lake and
filings
in
met with Jennifer Middleton
our consolidated cases
possible and as such

required
we
believe that
and have opportunities
Will you please let
me know
if
we
your
Thank you
Lea Ann
agreed that
need an extra week
to review
clients
attorneys can submit a motion to Judge
We
Tom
Johnson
we
in
Misha Issac and Kevin Diaz to
want to
order to
try
to coordinate
work
through
our
briefings
talk
as
about the
much
and etc
are amendable to this request so the cons olidated
McShane
as
the various levels of approvals
cooperative
happy
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Katharine
Sent
1 30 2014 5 59 46
Subject
Re
Sheila
VON TER STEGGE

PM
Geiger
Rummel
Of course
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jan 30
LEaston
2014
of
at
Justice
4 56 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
Ann
com mailto
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Notice
This communication
may contain
and is
information intended for a specific
are not
the
materials
intended
and
distribution
recipient
any attachments
of
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
this communication
notified
taking
protected by law
If you
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
the
copying
on it
is
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Kate
and
Sheila
This
afternoon
Diaz
to
talk
Lake
about
and
the
met with Jennifer
upcoming
filings
try to coordinate our briefings as much

extra week in order to work through the
opportunities
Will
review
you please let
cooperative
Thank
Lea
to
you
Ann
happy
and
me know
Middleton
Tom
in our consolidated
Johnson
cases
as possible and as such

we
various levels of approvals
Misha Issac
We
agreed
that
believe that
required and
and
we
Kevin
want
we need
have
to
an
etc
if
attorneys can
your clients
are amendable
submit a motion to
Judge
to
this request
McShane
so the
consolidated
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
2 5 2014 2 54 53
Subject
Apologies
ve
owed
keep
not
Mike
don
I
you a phone
MSJ
apology
was
it
another
thought
things
H
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
503
947
well
Trial Counsel
Street
OR
97301
4700
NE
of
Justice
a week
you during
very
Potter
12th
Salem
call
are going
Sheila
158
to
PM
for like
able
give
hope
call
being
the
t
Sheila
sweet
with all
but
ve
normal human
and
of
oh my god
the
been
sprinting
business hours
totally
various
from thing
Anyway
unnecessary
cooperatings
and
to
thing
For the
honestly
love
and
of
please
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
2 5 2014 3 28 13
Subject
Hello
Would
you keep
me posted
see any need
for the
about
proceeds
how
it
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
Sheila
on your dissolution case
state
to
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
PM
Justice
intervene
on the
with the
challenge
constitutional
but
would
challenge
be interested
don
in hearing
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
2 5 2014 4 22 20
Subject
Re
Yes
http
On
Mark Johnson
www
Sheila
also has one pending in Clack
at
5 28
PM
Potter
Would you keep me posted on

for the state to intervene
PM
Hello
Co He
said his
was
going to hearing soon
law works com
Feb 5 2014
Sheila
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
your dissolution case with the constitutional challenge
on the challenge
but would be interested
in hearing
about
don
how
it
see any need
proceeds
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
of Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Jr
Sent
2 7 2014 9 42 13
Subject
Re
Johnson Thomas
Jennifer
Middleton
Potter
Sheila
Misha Isaak
Lake
Perriguey
AM
motion to submit amended
memorandum
in
support of summary judgment
me
All fine with
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Fri
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Feb 7
Lake and
2014
at
9 43
AM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
plan to seek permission of the court to submit an amended
summary judgment
memorandum
We
com
memorandum
wrote
in
su pport of our motion for
to address the Ninth Circuit s decision in SmithKline rather than su bmit a supplemental
have to seek permission of the court and need to advise the court on the other
parties
on our request to the court
Can you
let
me know
hope you are
Lea Ann
all
your position
enjoying the
snow
Tragically
am
out of town
for
work and
will
completely
miss
it
position
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jr
Johnson Thomas
Jennifer
Middleton
Potter
Sheila
Misha Isaak
Katharine
VON
TER
STEGGE
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
2 7 2014 9 43 11
Subject
Lake
and
plan
to
seek
permission

than
the
you let
hope
Ann
court
on the
me know
you are all
completely
Lea
to
of
miss it
other
memorandum
the
address
submit a supplemental memorandum
advise
Can
AM
parties
We
court
the
have
in
to
submit an amended
Ninth
to
position
memorandum
Circuit s decision
seek
permission
on our request
to
of
the
the
in support
in SmithKline
court
and
need
court
your position
enjoying
the
snow
Tragically
am out
of
town
for work
and
will
of
rather
to
H
VON TER STEGGE
From
Potter
To
Katharine
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Jr
Sent
2 7 2014 9 44 52
AM
Subject
Re
Sheila
Johnson Thomas
Jennifer
memorandum
in
Middleton
Misha Isaak
Lake
Perriguey
Of course
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Feb 7
katevts
All
fine
Kate
von
2014
at
Ter
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
Lake
Feb 7
and
County
988
500
Can
I
3377
katevts
2014
at
co
County
plan
to
seek
the
you let
hope
Ann
court
on the
me know
you are all

miss it
OR
Attorney
97214
fax
9 43 AM
dorsayindianlaw
completely
Lea
Multnomah
Lea
Ann
com mailto
permission
to
of
other
the
address
parties
multco us
Easton
LEaston
advise
STEGGE
wrote
Portland

than
VON TER
multco us
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
Fri
Katharine
katevts
Stegge
501
LEaston
9 42 AM
with me
Assistant
On
Justice
multco us mailto
Senior
katevts
of
We
dorsayindianlaw
court
the
have
to
to
wrote
submit an amended
Ninth
position
com
memorandum
Circuit s decision
seek
permission
on our request
to
of
the
the
in support
in SmithKline
court
and
need
court
your position
enjoying
the
snow
Tragically
am out
of
town
for work
and
will
of
rather
to
From
Postmaster
To
Potter
Sent
2 7 2014 9 45 14
Subject
Re
am out
need
of
the
immediate
assistant
Jennifer
975
Street
541
OR
683
office
the
week
assistance
Middleton
of Jennifer
AM
of
memorandum
February 3
please call
Schaller
Ste
2014
my office
in
at
541
will
not
683
be checking
2506
and
ask to
OUT OF OFFICE
my emails
speak
to
If
you
my
PC
1050
97401
2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
attorney
privilege
notify
behalf
Middleton
Johnson
Eugene
com on
PJ
Johnson
Oak
jjlslaw
Sheila
client
the
sender
Potter
Sheila
This
message
If
sheila
may contain
you have
potter
received
doj state
confidential
communications
this message
or us
in error
protected
please delete
by the
it
and
02 07 14 09 44
Of course
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Feb 7
katevts
All
fine
Kate
von
2014
at
Ter
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
Lake
Feb 7
and
County
988
500
Can
I
3377
katevts
2014
at
co
County
plan
to
seek
the
you let
hope
Ann
court
on the
me know
you are all

miss it
OR
Attorney
97214
fax
9 43 AM
dorsayindianlaw
completely
Lea
Multnomah
Lea
Ann
com mailto
permission
to
of
other
the
address
parties
multco us
Easton
LEaston
advise
STEGGE
wrote
Portland

than
VON TER
multco us
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
Fri
Katharine
katevts
Stegge
501
LEaston
9 42 AM
with me
Assistant
On
Justice
multco us mailto
Senior
katevts
of
We
dorsayindianlaw
court
the
have
to
to
wrote
submit an amended
Ninth
position
com
memorandum
Circuit s decision
seek
permission
on our request
to
of
the
the
in support
in SmithKline
court
and
need
court
your position
enjoying
the
snow
Tragically
am out
of
town
for work
and
will
of
rather
to
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Johnson
Thomas
JMiddleton
rsaxe
multco us
Holm
Perkins Coie
Jr
com
jjlslaw
aclu org
LEaston
Coie
katevts
lake
Kevin
Diaz
Kristina
kdiaz
com Lea Ann
law works
Perkins Coie
aclu or org
Easton
kdiaz
Jennifer Middleton
Rose
aclu or org
LEaston
Saxe
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
dorsayindianlaw
PM
Sent
2 7 2014 2 00 09
Subject
Rummell Geiger motion
Attachments
Motion for extension
of
for
extension
of
time
time pdf
Counsel
time to
week
that
it
from Lea Ann Easton that she conferred
understand
of
file
but that would
we
summary judgment
our respective
include
an
on a
fall
additional
federal holiday
eight
with
Sheila
you both about our intentionto
and
that
you have no
Tom
tells
me
briefs
days for the response
he spokewith you
that
as well
briefs
draft ofour
a motion
file
We
objection
originally
earlier
motion
is
for
an
eight
day extension
planned to request one
today and that you requested
attached
here
We
intend
to
file
on Monday
your attention
call
included
in this
us know
if
to
one
addition
to
our motion which
amicus party who requested
prospective
that
is
in
the attached
the Court set a deadline
motion a request that the Court set as a deadline
you have any objection
to this
Assuming you won
for
we
draft
We
amicus
for
have heard from counsel
briefs
We
think
this
is
for
one
a good idea
We
amicus briefs
the same date that reply briefs are due
go ahead andfile
will
this
Let
on Monday unless we hear any
objections
Thanks and
warm
stay
this
weekend
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
IRS CIRCULAR
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
R Johnson
Thomas
TRJohnson
OSB No
com

perkinscoie
PERKINS COIE
NW
com
Telephone
P O Box
40585
Portland
OR
Telephone
970480
INC
97240
503.227.6928
LLP
Couch Street Tenth

1120
No
KDiaz aclu or org

Kristina
MIsaak
OSB
Kevin Daz
010645
perkinscoie
Floor
RSaxe aclu org

Amanda Goad pro
503.727.2000
hac vice
AGoad aclu org

No
Middleton OSB
Jennifer
JOHNSON JOHNSON
AMERICAN CIVIL
FOUNDATION
071510
SCHALLER
PC
New York
OR
Eugene
Telephone
LIBERTIES UNION
NY
10004
97401
541.683.2506
Cooperating
ACLU
Rummell West Chickadonz Tanner and
Fund

DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
No 6 13 cv 02256 TC
UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiffs
By
v
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
as Governor
ROSENBLUM
in
Health
capacity
Statistics
in
of
Christine
his official
Paul
Rummell
JENNIFER
as Attorney
WOODWARD
in
his official
capacity
as
Fund
and
in
RANDY WALRUFF
Tanner and
Oregon ELLEN
General of Oregon
her official
Plaintiffs
Benjamin West Lisa Chickadonz
Deanna
Geiger Janine
Nelson Robert Duehmig and William
Plaintiffs
Griesar

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule
16 3 a
Defendants
UNOPPOSED
JOINT
MOTION
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
86959 0002 LEGAL29290775.1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
DEANNA L GEIGER
and
JANINE
NELSON ROBERT DUEHMIG

WILLIAM GRIESAR
No 6 13 cv 01834 MC
and
Plaintiffs
v
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
as Governor
ROSENBLUM
in
Health
capacity
Statistics
his official
Oregon ELLEN
General of Oregon
her official
in
of
JENNIFER
as Attorney
WOODWARD
in
RANDY WALRUFF
in
his official
capacity
as
Defendants
CONFERRAL CERTIFICATION
Lea
Ann
Easton counsel for
and William Griesar on behalf of her
West
faith
Lisa Chickadonz
Deanna Geiger
plaintiffs
clients
and on behalf of
Tanner and Basic
Christine
Janine
Nelson Robert Duehmig

Paul Rummell Benjamin
plaintiffs
Rights Education
Fund
conferred
in
good
about this motion with Sheila Potter counsel for defendants John Kitzhaber Ellen
Rosenblum and
defendant
Jennifer
Woodward
Randy Walruff
as well as with Katharine
All counsel consent
to the
von Ter Stegge counsel for
motion
MOTION
On
January
22 2014

the Rummell plaintiffs
the Court set a deadline of February
Lisa Chickadonz Christine
to file
a dispositive
Nelson Robert Duehmig and William

briefing
jointly
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule
move
the Court for an extension
UNOPPOSED
JOINT
10 2014
Tanner and
motion and
the
for plaintiffs
Rummell
of this deadline
Deanna Geiger
to file
and Geiger
by eight days
to February
Janine
plaintiffs
18 2014
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
86959 0002 LEGAL29290775.1
Fund
supplemental
plaintiffs
MOTION
Paul
Griesar the Geiger plaintiffs
16 3
for plaintiffs
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
The Rummell
of April
2014
Accordingly
plaintiffs
for amicus party briefs if
the following
February
and Geiger
18
2014
related to the
is
move
Response
2014
Reply
the Court to set a deadline
summary judgment motions
requested
Dispositive motion and supplemental
March 18 2014
any
also jointly
modified briefing schedule
plaintiffs
April
plaintiffs
brief
due from the Rummell
and Geiger plaintiffs respectively
briefs
briefs
due from defendants
due from defendants
Briefs due from any amicus parties
April
23
2014
This is the
plaintiffs
Oral argument
on dispositive motions
motion for extension of time
first
by the Rummell
plaintiffs
and Geiger
in this action
The Rummell
plaintiffs
and Geiger
plaintiffs
issues presented by this case are important and
Geiger
filed
plaintiffs
have good cause for
complex Counsel
for the
have been working quickly and diligently to prepare
and complexities of
counsel to request more time
if
case
this
they
At the hearing on January
deemed
it
necessary
with this
request
Rummell
their
Court but require an additional eight days to finalize their submissions
sensitivities
this
The
legal
plaintiffs
submissions
to
and
the
given the unique
22 2014
motion
the Court invited
counsel
now
accept
the Courts generous offer
For these reasons the Rummell

eight day extension of time
UNOPPOSED
JOINT
to file
their
plaintiffs
and Geiger
plaintiffs
dispositive motion submissions
MOTION
respectfully request an
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
86959 0002 LEGAL29290775.1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
DATED
February
10
2014
Thomas
R Johnson
Thomas R Johnson OSB No 010645

Kristina J Holm OSB No 112607
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
Perkins Coie LLP
Telephone
503.727.2000
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
Johnson Johnson
Telephone
Schaller
Oregon Inc
of
OSB No
KDiazaclu or org
Foundation
Telephone
PC
Foundation
Kevin Daz
ACLU
071510
541.683.2506
Cooperating
ACLU
OSB No
jjlslaw com
of
970480
Oregon Inc
503.227.6928
Rose Saxe pro hac
vice
RSaxe aclu org

Amanda Goad
pro hac vice
AGoad aclu org

Rummell West

Education
UNOPPOSED
JOINT
Fund
MOTION
Perkins Coie LLP
1120
NW
Portland
86959 0002 LEGAL29290775.1
Phone
Fax
OR
97209 4128
503.727.2000
503.727.2222
Johnson
To
Isaak
Misha
CC
Holm
Kristina
Thomas
kdiaz
2 7 2014 2 07 12
RE
on
the plaintiffs
think
for
any amicus
on
deadline
We
side
don
brief
be
to
on
on
the
extension
for
amicus
the potential
LEaston
jjlslaw
com
aclu org
Kevin
Diaz
lake
law works com
Lea
com
dorsayindianlaw
time
of
brief
would be
it
the employer is at this point
but they reached
filed
rsaxe
PM
know who
JMiddleton
Rose Saxe
com
dorsayindianlaw
multco us
katevts
out to us to see
same date as
we
if
but the
by at least one Oregon employer

would be
filed
assist
them in seeking
could
We
reply briefs
brought
as
did that
Misha
by Stoel Rives
the court s approval
mentioned putting an amicus
that date
Thomas R Johnson
1120
information
Middleton
Jennifer
aclu or org
the early stages
is in
it
more
bit
Sheila
Potter
kdiaz
LEaston
Subject
Coie
Perkins Coie
Sent
just
Perkins Coie
Jr
aclu or org
Ann Easton
To give
Perkins
brief
From
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
Isaak
Misha
Friday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
LEaston
07 2014 2 00 PM
sheila
Thomas R
kdiaz
Coie
Perkins
February
Sheila
Kevin Diaz
Subject
com
perkinscoie
aclu
potter
Jr
org
or
doj state or us
Perkins
kdiaz
com
dorsayindianlaw
Holm
Coie
aclu or
LEaston
for
multco
katevts
Kristina J
Rose Saxe
org
of
Coie
rsaxe
Jennifer
aclu
org
JMiddleton
Middleton
law works
lake
com
jjlslaw
com
Lea Ann Easton
com
dorsayindianlaw
extension
us
Perkins
time
Counsel
time to
week
that
it
understand
of
file
but that would
we
summary judgment
our respective
include
an
fall
on a
additional
federal holiday
eight
with
Sheila
and
that
you have no
Tom
tells
me
briefs
briefs
he spokewith you
that
as well
draft ofour
a motion
file
We
objection
originally
earlier
motion
is
for
an
eight
day extension
attached
here
We
intend
to
file
on Monday
call
your attention
included
in this
us know
if
to
one
addition
to
Thanks and
stay
warm
this
to this
weekend
Misha
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
that
is
in
the attached
objections
1120
our motion which
prospective
perkinscoie
com
Assuming you won
for
we
for
draft
We
amicus
briefs
We
think
this
is
for
one
a good idea
We
amicus briefs
will
go ahead andfile
this
Let
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Johnson
CC
Isaak
Sheila
Misha
JMiddleton
rsaxe
2 7 2014 5 43 07
Re Rummell
Deputy
Chief
lake
Holm
multco us
katevts
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
Kristina
aclu or org
com Lea Ann
law works
Easton
Perkins Coie
kdiaz
aclu or org
LEaston
Jennifer
Rose
Middleton
Saxe
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
dorsayindianlaw
Subject
Sheila
Coie
com
jjlslaw
Sent
objections
Perkins Coie
Jr
Perkins
aclu org
LEaston
No
Thomas
PM
Geiger motion for extension
of
time
here
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Feb 7
2014
TRJohnson
To
give
they
Oregon
but
the
reached
amicus
Thomas
out
OR
503
503
E MAIL
us to
on the
see if
on the
we
could
Coie
Jr
Perkins
potential
side
by Stoel
same
on that
Perkins
perkinscoie
plaintiffs
be filed
deadline
Rives
don
brief
know
think
assist them
date
wrote
amicus
We
Coie
com
it
is
in seeking
as reply briefs
We
it
who
would
the
in the
the
is
by at
at
early stages
court
did that
be brought
employer
this
but
s approval
for any
as Misha mentioned
date
LLP
Street
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
From
Isaak
Sent
Friday
Potter
katevts
Misha
Perkins
February 07
Sheila
Johnson
Thomas
or org mailto
rsaxe aclu
LEaston
kdiaz
LEaston
Jr
Rummell
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
multco us
Perkins
Coie
com mailto
or org
kdiaz
rsaxe aclu
org
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
com
2 00 PM
potter
katevts
aclu
Coie
jjlslaw
org mailto
Easton
Subject
JMiddleton
com mailto
2014
sheila
multco us mailto
Middleton
Ann
to
be filed
Couch
503
CELL
Cc
information
on the
Thomas
TRJohnson
Floor
PHONE
To
more
Johnson
Portland
FAX
Johnson
com mailto
employer
an amicus
N W
Tenth
2 07 PM
brief would
brief to
putting
1120
at
Justice
perkinscoie
just a bit
least one
point
of
com mailto
Holm
Kristina
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
aclu
or org mailto
lake
law
com mailto
LEaston
works
LEaston
of
Coie
Kevin
kdiaz
aclu
com mailto
Jennifer
Diaz
kdiaz
or org
lake
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
Perkins
com
law
aclu
Rose
works
Saxe
com
Lea
com
com
time
Counsel
I
understand
from Lea
Ann
a motion for an eight

and
that
fall
you have
on a federal
you requested
draft
I
of
call
heard
Easton
no objection
holiday
that
we
your attention
We
Sheila
include
our motion is
from counsel
attached
to
one
for one
addition
Court set as a deadline

if
this on Monday
Thanks
Misha
and
you have
unless
stay warm
we
Tom
prospective
for amicus
us know
We
think
tells
me that
eight
to
our motion
amicus
this is
to
party
a good
briefs
this
to
request
he spoke
file
it
idea
the
one
week
but
to
response
briefs
file
briefs
that
would
and
as well
that
on Monday
which
who
our intention
summary judgment
with you earlier today
days for the
to
about
our respective
intend
any objections
this weekend
with you both
file
We
for amicus
any objection
hear
time to
originally planned
here
that
Let
briefs
she conferred
of
an additional
deadline
the
that
day extension
is
in the
requested
We
same
included
date
Assuming you won
that
t
attached
that
we
the
draft
We
have
Court set a
in this motion a request

reply briefs
will
go ahead
are due
and
file
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
PHONE
OR
503
503
E MAIL
IRS
Coie
97209
727
346
2086
CIRCULAR
contained
Perkins
4128
2086
misaak
perkinscoie
230
regulations
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
ensure
perkinscoie
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
without
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
com
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
misaak
herein
message
com mailto
avoiding
have
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
FAX
Perkins
Couch
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
Lake Perriguey
To
Johnson
CC
Isaak
Rose Saxe
LEaston
Subject
Re Rummell
www
On
on
just
for
is in
it
on
We
side
kdiaz
LEaston
Kristina
aclu or org
Perkins
kdiaz
Coie
or
org
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
is
of
time
Nike
don
be
to
brief
on
know who
on
the
Perkins Coie
Jr
amicus
the potential
brief
TRJohnson
would be
it
the employer is at this point
but they reached
filed
out to us to see
same date as
we
if
but the
did that
as
com
wrote
by at least one Oregon employer

would be
filed
assist
them in seeking
could
We
reply briefs
brought
perkinscoie
Misha
by Stoel Rives
the court s approval
mentioned putting an amicus
that date
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Kevin Diaz
PM
Thomas
Johnson
information
the early stages
any amicus
deadline
more
bit
PM
4 07
at
the plaintiffs
think
it
Holm
multco us
katevts
Lea Ann Easton
contact at Stoel
com
law works com
Feb 7 2014
To give
Sheila
jjlslaw
brief
http
Potter
aclu org
dorsayindianlaw
2 7 2014 7 07 42
my
Coie
JMiddleton
rsaxe
Sent
have heard from
Perkins Coie
Jr
Perkins
Middleton
Jennifer
Thomas
Misha
aclu
From
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
Isaak
Misha
Friday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Coie
Perkins
07 2014 2 00 PM
sheila potter
Thomas R
kdiaz
LEaston
com
February
Sheila
Kevin Diaz
Subject
perkinscoie
Jr
aclu or
org
com
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
Perkins
Coie
kdiaz
Holm
aclu
LEaston
for
or
multco
katevts
Kristina J
Rose Saxe
org
of
Coie
rsaxe
Jennifer
aclu
org
JMiddleton
Middleton
law works
lake
com
jjlslaw
com
Lea Ann Easton
com
dorsayindianlaw
extension
us
Perkins
time
Counsel
time to
week
that
it
understand
of
file
our respective
but that would
we
include
an
fall
summary judgment
on a
additional
federal holiday
eight
with
Sheila
and
that
you have no
Tom
tells
me
briefs
briefs
he spokewith you
that
as well
draft ofour
a motion
file
We
objection
originally
earlier
motion
is
for
an
eight
day extension
attached
here
We
intend
on Monday
call
your attention
prospective
to
one
addition
to
our motion which
that
is
in
the attached
for
draft
We
amicus
briefs
We
think
this
is
for
one
a good idea
We
to
file
included
in this
us know
if
to this
Assuming you won
for
we
amicus briefs
go ahead andfile
will
this
Let
objections
Thanks and
warm
stay
this
weekend
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL misaak perkinscoie com
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Johnson
J
Thomas
Perkins Coie
kdiaz
aclu or org
LEaston
2 10 2014 6 17 11
Subject
Re Rummell
answer
is
object
due today
Unfortunately
if
file
a one
503 988 3138
katevts
Rose Saxe
com
motion for extension
week
Suite
500
Isaak
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
Misha
JMiddleton
rsaxe
aclu org
LEaston
Perkins Coie
jjlslaw
com
Potter
Kevin
Diaz
Sheila
kdiaz
H Holm
or
Kristina
org
Lea Ann Easton
dorsayindianlaw
of
com
time
extension on the County s answer in
have to stay home today again because
503 988 3377
multco us
Middleton
the due date I will request from the Court
SE Hawthorne
Perkins Coie
AM
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
Jr
dorsayindianlaw
Sent
Does anyone
Jennifer
aclu
From
my
is
next
Rummel
With mailing days our
Monday
daughter s daycare
is
closed
due to snow mania
Lake Perriguey
To
Katharine
CC
Johnson
J
VON TER STEGGE

R Jr Perkins
Thomas
Perkins Coie
kdiaz
Jennifer
aclu or org
LEaston
Sent
2 10 2014 6 19 49
Subject
Re Rummell
No
www
Misha
rsaxe
com
Potter
Kevin
Diaz
Sheila
kdiaz
H Holm
or
Kristina
org
Lea Ann Easton
aclu org
LEaston
Perkins Coie
jjlslaw
dorsayindianlaw
com
AM
of
time
law works com
Feb 10 2014
Does anyone
answer
is
at
object
due today
Unfortunately
8 17
if
AM
file
Katharine
a one
week
VON TER STEGGE
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
katevts
multco us
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
com
Isaak
JMiddleton
objection
http
On
Rose Saxe
dorsayindianlaw
Coie
Middleton
aclu
From
my
is
next
wrote
Rummel
Monday
daughter s daycare
is
closed
due to snow mania
From
Isaak
To
Katharine
CC
Lake Perriguey Johnson
Misha
Coie
or
Perkins
Jennifer
org
Middleton
Rose Saxe
LEaston
2 10 2014 7 00 26
Subject
Re Rummell
objection
rsaxe
dorsayindianlaw
Sent
No
Coie
VON TER STEGGE

Thomas
Perkins Coie
Jr
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
Lea Ann Easton
aclu org
Potter
Sheila
Kevin Diaz
LEaston
kdiaz
Holm
Kristina
aclu or org
Perkins
aclu
kdiaz
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
AM
of
time
from us
Misha
Sent from
On
my iPhone
Feb 10 2014
Does anyone
answer
6 17
at
object
Unfortunately
if
due today
is
AM
file
Katharine
a one
week
VON TER STEGGE
katevts
my
is
next
multco us
wrote
Rummel
Monday
daughter s daycare
closed
is
due to snow mania
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
OR
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Katharine
CC
Holm
VON TER STEGGE

Kristina
kdiaz
aclu or org
Sent
2 10 2014 7 31 00
Subject
Re Rummell
No
Good
objection
luck with the
Thomas
Perkins Coie
kdiaz
Jr
Perkins Coie
Jennifer
aclu or org
Middleton
Rose Saxe
Isaak
Misha
JMiddleton
rsaxe
Perkins Coie Potter Sheila
jjlslaw
com
Kevin
Diaz
aclu org
AM
of
time
snow day
Lea Ann
On
Feb 10 2014
Does anyone
answer
is
at
object
due today
Unfortunately
6 17
if
AM
file
Katharine
a one
week
VON TER STEGGE
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
katevts
my
is
next
multco us
wrote
Rummel
Monday
daughter s daycare
is
closed
due to snow mania
From
Potter
To
CC
Johnson
Coie
or
H
VON TER STEGGE Lake Perriguey
Thomas R Jr Perkins Coie Isaak Misha
Sheila
Katharine
Jennifer
Middleton
Rose Saxe
org
LEaston
JMiddleton
rsaxe
dorsayindianlaw
Sent
2 10 2014 8 05 50
Subject
RE
jjlslaw
com
Perkins Coie
Kevin Diaz
Lea Ann Easton
aclu org
LEaston
Holm
kdiaz
Kristina
J Perkins
aclu or org
dorsayindianlaw
aclu
kdiaz
com
com
AM
Rummell motion
for
extension
of
time
Nope
From
Katharine
Sent
Monday
To
Lake
Cc
Johnson
Holm
kdiaz
aclu
Subject
Does
STEGGE
mailto
2014
katevts
multco us
6 17 AM
Perriguey
Thomas
Kristina
LEaston
VON TER
February 10
Jr
Coie
kdiaz
aclu
or org
dorsayindianlaw
Re
anyone
mailing days
Rummell
object
Perkins
Perkins
com
Coie
Isaak
Jennifer
or org
LEaston
Rose
if
file
a one
due
week
today
Saxe
of
rsaxe aclu
Coie
jjlslaw
org
Lea
Potter
com
Ann
Sheila
Kevin
Diaz
Easton
com
time
extension
the
Perkins
JMiddleton
dorsayindianlaw
our answer is
Misha
Middleton
due
on the
date
County
will
s answer in Rummel
request
from the
With
Court is
next
Monday
Unfortunately
snow
mania
Kate
von
Ter
have
stay home
today
again
because
my daughter
s daycare
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
to
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
is
closed
due
to
From
Potter
To
Johnson
Sent
2 10 2014 2 03 48
Subject
Meeting
Short
answer
participants
Yes
let
so
will
with your people
to
Sheila
Thomas
s have
get
one
back
figure out
R Jr
PM
Perkins Coie
Longer
to
answer
you on that
availability
TRJohnson
Trying
But
to
perkinscoie
com
figure out
sometime this week
on your end
of
things
timing
I
and
think
maybe check
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
TRJohnson
JMiddleton
perkinscoie
com
jjlslaw
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
2 10 2014 5 07 17
Subject
FW
Nevada s Ninth
Attachments
filed
motion pdf
Counsel
The Nevada
SG sent
us a copy
of
Circuit in their marriage case

viewed
through
up all
over
right here
Sheila
the
the
SmithKline
internet
soon
com
Isaak
Thomas
Misha
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Perkins Coie
Jr
Perkins Coie
misaak
perkinscoie
com
multco us
katevts
PM
Circuit
filing
his motion to
withdraw
he s conceding
lens
but
is
I
that
dispositive
thought
Nevada
in all
s answering
candor
it
imagine copies
d pass it
along
since
of
I
brief to
appears
that
this will
happen
to
the
Ninth
Windsor
be popping
have
a copy
Case 12 17668
02 10 2014
ID 8973022
Page
DktEntry 171
1 of
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
IN
BEVERLY SEVCIK
et
No 12 17668
al
USDC
Plaintiff Appellant
No 2 12
Las Vegas
cv 00578 RCJPAL
v
BRIAN SANDOVAL
in his official
as Governor of the State of
Nevada
capacity
et
al
Defendants Appellees
and
THE PROTECTION
COALITION FOR
OF
MARRIAGE
Intervenor Defendant Appellee
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW

Defendant Appellee
attorneys Catherine Cortez
C Wayne
Howle
answering
brief filed
application
upon
the
pleadings
is
on
file
Masto Nevada
hereafter the
made
following
the Governor of the State of
pursuant to
on
FED
Memorandum
of
January
Nevada by and
Attorney General and
State hereby submit
in this court
BRIEF
APP
Points
herein
this
21 2014
through his
Solicitor
General
motion to withdraw the
as
DktEntry 113
Rules 27 and
28 j
and
is
This
based
and Authorities and the papers and
Case 12 17668
02 10 2014
ID 8973022
MEMORANDUM OF
The State by and
of supplemental
authority pursuant to
R APP P
FED
2 of
AUTHORITIES
through the undersigned attorneys presents
to withdraw the States
for leave
AND
POINTS
Page
DktEntry 171
Rule
28 j
answering brief pursuant to
this
and
1
2
notice
motion
R APP P Rule
FED
27
When
Sandoval
same sex
the district
911
court
decided
Supp 2d 996
this case
in
Nev 2013
see Sevcik
treatment
of
November 2012
the
law
regarding
laws was uncertain and was open to
couples under traditional marriage
interpretation
June
In
U S Supreme
2013
2013
Court in Windsor
The Court
SCt
at
2694 the
in
analysis
its
laws
traditional marriage
and relevant
authoritative
the
and
unstable position of being in a
treatment
dignity and
referenced the
stability
States 570
United
of
second tier
marriage and
its
was
US
of
marriage,
id
133
same sex
liberty
id couple
Process
denying
Clause contains
to
Citations
by
the
within
any person the equal
omitted
While
the
Amendment's
the prohibition
it
under
protection
Fifth
133
id
s whose
the integrity and closeness
Fifth
of
Due
against
the
Amendment
laws
itself
the
2675
integrity of the person,
concord with other families, id
protected
SCt
couples
Ultimately Windsor held that
The
by
established
of basic personal relations,
predictability
and sexual choices the Constitution protects,
same sex
precedent
the
moral
of
Case 12 17668
02 10 2014
from Government
withdraws
demean
way
in the
guarantee
ID 8973022
law
this
of the Fourteenth
Amendment
the
power
does
the
degrade
to
equal
specific
and
3 of
or
protection
Amendment makes
more
the
right all
Page
DktEntry 171
that Fifth
the better
all
understood and preserved
133
SCt
equal
2695
at
protection
This single passage
guarantees
and
carries
signifies
meaning
that
due process
for both
discrimination
and
same sex
against
couples is unconstitutional
Dissenting
example
Justice
choice
whether
stated
the
same sex
in Windsor
Justices
Alito
wrote
samesex
Constitution
marriage.
The
Id
at
Constitution
may
couples
neither
did not think the decision went so far
marry].
requires
2707
But
however does
133
SCt at
not
2711
nor forbids our society
these are the voices
dictate
Justice
to
For
that
Scalia
approve of
of the dissent
and
their
view did not prevail
The
law
the
at
followed
Scalia
Windsor in
State attempted to distinguish
time its
Justice
brief
Scalias
was
the arguments
written
invitation
its
to
distinguish
answering brief Given the
were plausible
away.
133
The
SCt
at
State
2709
J dissenting
Any
dispelled
uncertainty
by
Laboratories
the
Case
regarding
Ninth
Circuits
No 11 17357
which by coincidence
was
the
interpretation
decision
2014
issued the
WL
in
Windsor
SmithKline
211807
same day
of
9th
that the
was
Beecham
Cir January
State filed
its
recently
Abbott
21 2014
answering
Case 12 17668
The
brief
pursuant to
02 10 2014
decision
FED
in
APP
ID 8973022
SmithKline
Rule
28 j
viewed through the SmithKline lens
In
the
below
decision
in
is
is
being
and in
1972
In the alternative
required rational basis
review and
the
same day
Baker controlled
strike
juror
granted
on the basis of
heightened
overruling
Clearance
this
it
scrutiny
courts
Office 895
appears
court
district
The
F2d
was improper
it
on
Court
563
in
9th
orientation
In order to reach
decision
attention
Windsor
the
States
Nelson 409
court held that Nevadas
summary judgment on
whether
his sexual
was
that
granted
that
the State posited that rational basis review
examined whether laws categorizing
to
Courts
laws only
basis
Both
by SmithKline
SmithKline decided
Court determined that
it
the
established in Baker
the district
of these holdings have been vitiated
On
to
candor
all
the
motion to dismiss based upon the precedent
U S 810
brought
4 of
dispositive
case
this
Page
DktEntry 171
this
applied and that
in a civil
three judge panel of this
conclusion
the
concluded
High
Cir
in
the
Gays
Tech
1990 on
action to
affirmative
which
Court
first
are entitled
effectively
Defense
Indus
the State
relied
Sec
in
its
brief
The
dispositive
WL
SmithKline
panel
determined
that
of the question of the appropriate
211807
at
and
that
Windsors
United
level
States
Windsor
of scrutiny in this case,
heightened
scrutiny
is
2014
applies
to
Case 12 17668
ID 8973022
based on sexual orientation.
classifications
was
02 10 2014
reversed and remanded for a
SmithKlines holding
Because
Circuit
relied
basis review
States
applied
Id
at
The
district
was
thus
to laws
standard of review
categorizing
upon
on
14
at
constructed
5 of
courts decision
in the Ninth
for cases
argument was grounded upon equal
protection
and
the premise that only rational
the
argument cannot withstand legal scrutiny
SmithKline holds additional
High Tech
panel
trial
new
sets a
the States
on High Tech and
new
Id
Page
DktEntry 171
first
did not
control
reasoned
that it
and
significance
that
was
cannot
be reconciled
higher
authority
classifications
based
on
hold
sexual
SmithKline panel referenced Romer
Agriculture
decisions
Subsequent
decision
F3d
it
had
839 852
2014
Evans 517
1973
To
find that
SmithKline
the
Our
earlier
are
bound by
WL
scrutiny
211807
U S 620
and Lawrence
1996
controlling
applies
at
developments
Hicks
n 13
may
v Miranda 422
9th
Cir 1997
vitiate
US
The
any
Texas 539
force
332 344
to
The
Department
Id
summary
Jones
referenced
by
1975
legal evolution
of
U S 653
considered as culminating in the Windsor decision
doctrinal
might have
Bates 127
U S 528
v Moreno 413
2003 which
bar
High Tech
heightened
Windsor's
orientation.
at
we
Because
that
case
to disregard
to classifications
with Windsor
we now
the
scrutiny applied
heightened
appropriate
cases applying rational basis review
for
Case 12 17668
SmithKline
Thus
position
its
is
Baker
02 10 2014
Nelson argument
by
no
that its
the
vitiates
States
basis of
the
States
arguments
is
is
SmithKline
this Courts holding in
controlling
and
as
result the
arguments grounded upon equal protection
and due
State
has
process
are
longer sustainable
The
State
recognizes the
before the mandate
law
until
Edition
Cir
9 18
issues.
Supp 2013
However
of the courts
that there is a
24068
2014
WL
116013
2014
States
the
No
even
stand
at
justify
that
if
not yet fixed as settled Ninth Circuit
has
See
is
eg
SD W Va
Jan
is
Baker
is
116013
no
longer
at
1033 1037
a high
since
29
prior to
There
Windsor
McGee
9th
probability that
granted
finding that Baker is
WL
F2d
interim validity
consensus
well
Ninth Circuit Second
Ruiz 935
rehearing
judicial
04CV848 2014
Court concludes
SmithKline might yield
that
Furthermore there
other courts as
developments since Baker
United
Id
mandate.
by
Circuit opinion
broad emerging
the Ninth Circuit but
is
United States
citing
will
possibility
Federal Appellate Practice
Ninth
SmithKline decision
doubt
technical
The opinion
issues
the mandate
1991
issuance
the
the
that
6 of
argument undermined so
protection
Therefore
in SmithKline is
decision
determined
equal
Page
DktEntry 171
development
doctrinal
not only is the States
rendered inapposite
The
undeniably
ID 8973022
Cole
2014
is
little
not only in
No 3 13
octrinal
nonbinding Bishop
17
a binding
ND Okla
summary
Jan
14
dismissal
Case 12 17668
as to those
issues Kitchen
D Utah
is not
it
outcome
the
ID 8973022
no
is
2013
WL
proceedings
legal
7 of
6697874
Post decisional
SmithKline
in
sought here
proceedings in SmithKline could extend well beyond the date of argument in
Together with the thirty day extension given
appeal
at
longer controlling precedent
States interest to postpone the relief
in the
of
Nelson
Page
DktEntry 171
No 2 13cv217
Herbert
Baker v
Dec 20 2013
Moreover
awaiting
02 10 2014
this
to petition for rehearing
in
SmithKline
the time required
and the time
any
for
for
decision
briefing and
to issue could
argument
delay
a petition
if
proceedings
the
is
granted
by
several
months
Finally the State submits that retraction
Court
of the
Everett 700
F2d
fails
to
also
Yuan Gao
file
properly decide this
to
900 902
n5
Mukasey 519
Miller Federal Prac
Proc
may
F3d
thirty
The
period
376
7th
in
Case
Cir
App
P 31 c U S v
appellee after proper
brief of appellant
2008
notice
only
See
See generally Wright
Further the remaining
to petition for rehearing
27 2014
an
briefs canvass
the
position and the related policy considerations
days by order on motion made
Order of January
if
Fed
decide case on
3977.2
arguments against the Appellants
brief will not affect the ability
its
See
1983
3rd Cir
brief court of appeals
appeal
of
and
rehearing
en banc
by Respondent Abbott
No 11 17357
7
DktEntry
87
was extended
Laboratories
See
Case 12 17668
02 10 2014
ID 8973022
DktEntry 171
Page
8 of
CONCLUSION
For these reasons the State respectfully
withdraw
its
responding
DATED
this
brief in its
moves
this
Court for permission to
entirety
10th day of February
2014
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

Attorney General
By
C Wayne
C Wayne
Solicitor
Howle
Howle
General
Nevada State Bar 3443

100 North Carson Street
Carson City Nevada
89701
775 684 1227
775 684 1108 f
Attorneys for Governor Brian
Sandoval
Case 12 17668
02 10 2014
ID 8973022
DktEntry 171
Page
9 of
I
hereby
certify that I electronically
Court for the United
appellate
CM ECF
Participants
the appellate
States
filed
Court of Appeals
system on February
in the case
the foregoing
for
with the Clerk of the
the Ninth Circuit
by using
the
10 2014
are registered
CM ECF users and
will
be served by
CMECF system
s
Vicki Beavers
Vicki Beavers an employee of the office

of the Attorney General for the State of
Nevada
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
2 10 2014 5 14 43
Subject
Re Nevada
Sheila
PM
s Ninth Circuit
filing
Thank you
www
http
On
law works com
Feb 10 2014
7 07
at
PM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Counsel
The Nevada SG sent us a copy of

their marriage case
SmithKline lens
thought
is
pass
it
he
his
s conceding
dispositive
along since
I
I
motion to withdraw Nevada

in all candor
that
it
s answering
happen to have a copy
up
the
Ninth
Circuit in
viewed through the
appears thatWindsor
imagine copies of this will be popping
brief to
over the
all
internet
soon but
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
filed
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
or otherwise
motion pdf
confidential
appears
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
2 10 2014 5 15 17
Subject
RE
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
To
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
Thank
Lake
Law
Sheila
works
com
5 15 PM
s Ninth
Circuit filing
SW
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Portland
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
Feb 10
sheila
Street
Oregon
http
On
law
filing
you
Works
OTLA
lake
2014
Circuit
Nevada
James H
1906
mailto
February 10
Re
PM
Nevada s Ninth
works
of
at
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
2014
potter
503
www
law
works
com
Justice
7 07 PM
doj state
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
Counsel
The
Nevada
SG sent
us a copy
of

viewed
through
up all
over
the
the
SmithKline
internet
his motion to
withdraw
he s conceding
lens
soon
but
is
I
that
dispositive
thought
Nevada
in all
s answering
candor
it
imagine copies
d pass it
along
since
brief to
appears
of
this will
happen
the
that
to
Ninth
Windsor
be popping
have
a copy
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
filed
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
received
contents
from your system
motion pdf
If
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
JMiddleton
Joyce Anna
Sent
2 10 2014 5 15 40
Subject
RE
for
com
jjlslaw
CC
Thank you
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Thomas
Perkins
Jr
Coie
multco us
katevts
PM
Nevada s Ninth
Circuit
filing
passing this along
Best
Misha
Misha Isaak
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Monday
mailto sheila
February 10
Lea Ann Easton
JMiddleton
Cc
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
Lake
com
jjlslaw
potter
doj state or us
2014 5 07 PM
Perriguey
Thomas R
Johnson
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Jr
Coie
Perkins
multco
katevts
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
us
Joyce Anna
Subject
FW
Nevada
Ninth Circuit
filing
Counsel

he
their marriage case
SmithKline lens
thought
is
pass
it
his
s conceding
dispositive
along since

in all candor
that
it
s answering
up
Ninth
the
Circuit in
viewed through the
appears thatWindsor
brief to
over the
all
internet
soon but
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
2 10 2014 5 18 15
Subject
Re Nevada
www
http
On
Sent
To
Lake
Potter
Thank you
7 15
PM
PM
s Ninth Circuit
Potter
mailto lake
February 10
Sheila
Re
at
Perriguey
Monday
Subject
H
filing
law works com
Feb 10 2014
From
Sheila
Sheila
law works
2014 5 15 PM
Nevada
Ninth Circuit
filing
sheila
com
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
skype
Street
Oregon 97205
Portland
law works
com
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Feb 10 2014
Civil
at
Justice
7 07
PM
Potter Sheila
H sheila
potter
doj state
or us wrote
Counsel

their marriage case
SmithKline lens
thought
is
pass
it
he
his
s conceding
dispositive
along since
I
I

in all candor
that
it
s answering
up
the
Ninth
Circuit in
viewed through the
appears thatWindsor
brief to
over the
all
internet
soon but
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
filed
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
or otherwise
motion pdf
confidential
appears
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
2 10 2014 5 20 36
Subject
RE
Attachments
image001
HA
PM
Nevada s Ninth
Circuit
filing
jpg
Awesome
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
To
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
mailto
February 10
Sheila
Re
lake
2014
law
works
com
5 18 PM
Nevada
s Ninth
Circuit filing
image jpeg
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
F
Perriguey
LLC
503
503
227
334
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
1928
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Street
Oregon
law
Guardian
tel
tel
works
of
503
503
20227
20334
com http
Civil
1928
2340
www
law
works
com
Justice
On Feb 10
2014
at 7 15 PM
Potter Sheila H
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
Perriguey
mailto
February 10
To
Potter Sheila H
Subject
Re
Nevada
s Ninth
Thank
Lake
Law
lake
2014
law
works
wrote
doj state
or us
wrote
com
5 15 PM
Circuit filing
Perriguey
LLC

Portland
Oregon 97205
x apple
x apple
503
227
1928
tel
503
20227
1928
503
334
2340
tel
503
20334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
On
or us
you
James H
Works
OTLA
doj state
law
Guardian
Feb 10
sheila
works
of
Civil
2014
potter
com http
at
data
data
detectors
detectors
www
law
0 0
0 0
works
com
Justice
7 07 PM
doj state
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
Counsel
The
Nevada
SG sent
us a copy
of
his motion to
withdraw

he s conceding that
is dispositive
viewed through the SmithKline lens
up all
over
the
internet
soon
but
thought
Nevada
s answering
brief to
the
Ninth
in all candor it
appears that Windsor
I imagine copies of this will be popping
d pass it
along
since
happen
to
have
a copy
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
that
information
applicable
you have
law
received
reply e mail
keep the contents
from your system
attachments
filed
motion pdf
If
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
ta111boali
uI
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
2 10 2014 5 27 25
Subject
Re Nevada
Sheila
PM
s Ninth Circuit
filing
Sheila
Can you
if
there
www
http
On
me
clue
was
in
way
on what position
to
move
this
statement you and the office
theory
forward without a hearing
in
are going
to put forth
It
would be great
two months
law works com
Feb 10 2014
7 07
at
PM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Counsel

their marriage case
SmithKline lens
thought
is
pass
it
he
his
s conceding
dispositive
along since
I
I

in all candor
that
it
s answering
up
the
Ninth
Circuit in
viewed through the
appears thatWindsor
brief to
over the
all
internet
soon but
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
filed
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
appears
or otherwise
motion pdf
confidential
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
2 10 2014 5 30 11
Subject
RE
Will
get
back
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
To
mailto
February 10
Sheila
Re
Circuit
filing
you on that
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
to
PM
Nevada s Ninth
lake
2014
law
works
com
5 27 PM
Nevada
s Ninth
Circuit filing
Sheila
Can
you clue
forth
It
me in on what
would
be great
position
if
there
theory
was
a way
statement
to
move
you and
this forward
the
office
without
are going
a hearing
to
put
in two
months
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
detectors
0 0
data
detectors
0 0
tel
334
2340
tel
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
Feb 10
sheila
data
x apple
1928
www
On
x apple
97205
227
http
OTLA
Street
Oregon
works
of
at
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
2014
potter
503
www
law
works
com
Justice
7 07 PM
doj state
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
Counsel
The
Nevada
SG sent
us a copy
of

viewed
through
up all
over
the
the
SmithKline
internet
his motion to
withdraw
he s conceding
lens
soon
but
is
I
that
dispositive
thought
Nevada
in all
s answering
candor
it
imagine copies
d pass it
along
since
brief to
appears
of
this will
happen
the
that
to
Ninth
Windsor
be popping
have
a copy
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
filed
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
received
contents
from your system
motion pdf
If
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
2 10 2014 6 16 53
Subject
Re Nevada
Sheila
PM
s Ninth Circuit
filing
Sheila
Thank you for passing
this
along
This case
is
fascinating
on so many
levels
Lea Ann
On
Feb 10 2014
5 07
at
PM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Counsel

their marriage case
SmithKline lens
thought
is
pass
it
he
his
s conceding
dispositive
along since
I
I

in all candor
that
it
s answering
up
the
Ninth
Circuit in
viewed through the
appears thatWindsor
brief to
over the
all
internet
soon but
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
2 10 2014 6 22 08
Subject
RE
Agree
It
is
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Ann
Potter
Subject
unlike
Circuit
else I
mailto
February 10
Sheila
Re
anything
Easton
PM
Nevada s Ninth
ve
LEaston
2014
filing
ever
worked
on
dorsayindianlaw
One reason
like
it
so much
com
6 17 PM
Nevada
s Ninth
Circuit filing
Sheila
Thank
Lea
On
you for passing this along
This
case
is
fascinating
on so many
levels
Ann
Feb 10
sheila
2014
potter
at
5 07 PM
doj state
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
Counsel
The
Nevada
SG sent
us a copy
of

viewed
through
up all
over
the
the
SmithKline
internet
his motion to
withdraw
he s conceding
lens
soon
but
is
I
that
dispositive
thought
Nevada
in all
s answering
candor
it
imagine copies
d pass it
along
since
brief to
appears
of
this will
happen
the
that
to
Ninth
Windsor
be popping
have
a copy
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
2 10 2014 7 13 13
Subject
RE
check on
ll
week
this
will
My
end
this
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
PM
Meeting
availability
but Friday
propose on
Perkins Coie
Jr
and
sense
your side might be the tougher
understand
which
although
not overly
others here
group
Great
Thomas
Sheila
may
attached
disagree
to
is
that this
me know
Let
should
to schedule
be a
m free
and
small group
your timing
and
ll
make
it
every day
that s what
happen
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Potter
Sent
To
perkinscoie
Sheila
Monday
Johnson
Subject
com
mailto sheila
Thomas R
potter
doj state or us
2014 2 04 PM
February 10
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Meeting
Short answer
Yes
let
have one Longer answer
back to you on that But sometime this

availability
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
or written
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
to
gure
out
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
any transaction
NOTICE
me
230 DISCLOSURE
may be imposed on
party
is
that
check with your people
will get
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
maybe
think
so
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
out timing and participants
on your end of things
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
week
gure
Trying to
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Thomas
Johnson
Sent
2 10 2014 7 16 00
Subject
RE
The
smaller the
timing
what
so that
the
together
give
Johnson
Sent
Monday
Potter
Subject
that
Thomas
503
503
E MAIL
being
Will
in with you in advance
before
might mean
it
hits PACER
asking
of
Unless
for another
check
filing
can
short
here
the
on
answer
pull people
extension
ll
morning
R
Jr
Perkins
2014
every
Coie
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
7 13 PM
and
day this week
may disagree
Let
Perkins
and
me know
Coie
understand
but
your side might be the
Friday
that
My
s what
your timing
and
sense
which
will
propose
ll
make
it
tougher
m not
group
overly
to
attached
on this end
to
although
happen
LLP
Street
97209
727
914
346
From
Potter
Monday
8918
2176
Sheila
Thomas
answer
Jr
Yes
let
so
will
with your people
to
potter
doj state
com
or us
2 04 PM
Perkins
Coie
under
or otherwise
attachments
CIRCULAR
availability
the
law
If
received
contents
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
answer
Trying
you on that
But
to
figure out
timing
sometime this week
on your end
of
privileged
confidential
and
think
maybe check
things
that
is
you are not
the
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
regulations
contained
Longer
to
information
you have
keep
one
back
applicable
that
reply e mail
get
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
s have
figure out
CONFIDENTIALITY
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
sheila
2014
Meeting
participants
Perkins
com mailto
mailto
February 10
Johnson
Subject
Short
4128
2176
Sent
have
that
be comfortable
check
re filing
eek
on availability
m free
OR
503
CELL
IRS
we
will
is
Floor
PHONE
This
check
Couch
Portland
To
Thomas
Johnson
N W
FAX
what
this should be a small group

here
Tenth
in the
candid
ideally
Meeting
others
1120
more
do
tomorrow
Sheila
ll
schedule
is
to
February 10
RE
I
Great
the
d like
parties know
you a call
Perkins Coie
Jr
Meeting
group
like
From
To
R
PM
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
2 11 2014 2 52 43
Subject
Meeting
Thomas
Sheila
to
Perkins Coie
Jr
H
PM
Discuss Rummell Case
Sheila
We
re on for 10 00
the reasons
we
discussed
maybe two
one
sending
may
Jennifer Middleton
I
ll
am on
Thursday
So
far
people
your office
we
me
have
will
one or both
also attend but she
m working
Misha
of Kevin
is
in
to
keep the group as small as possible
and Jeana
Diaz
haven
ED
ACLU is
ED
and Dave Fidanque
Legal Director
Eugene and
BRO
Frazzini
for
been able
to discuss with her yet
you know
let
Anyway
thanks for doing this
Best regards
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
IRS CIRCULAR
perkinscoie
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
2 11 2014 3 11 12
Subject
RE
The
Ninth Circuit
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
Monday
Circuit
filing
McShane
rule before
mailto sheila
February 10
PM
Nevada s Ninth
potter
doj state or us
2014 6 22 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Agree
Sent
RE Nevada
It
From
To
may
Sheila
is
Lea Ann Easton
Potter
mailto
February 10
ve ever worked on
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
One
reason
like
it
so
much
com
2014 6 17 PM
Sheila
Re
filing
unlike anything else
Monday
Subject
Ninth Circuit
Nevada
Ninth Circuit
filing
Sheila
Thank you
for
passing
this
along
This case is fascinating
on so many
levels
Lea Ann
On Feb 10 2014
at
5 07
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila potter
doj state
or us wrote
Counsel

their marriage case
SmithKline lens
thought
is
pass
it
he
his
s conceding
dispositive
along since
I
I

in all candor
that
it
s answering
up
the
Ninth
Circuit in
viewed through the
appears thatWindsor
brief to
over the
all
internet
soon but
right here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
Johnson
Thomas
To
charlene
pew
CC
Potter
Sheila
Middleton
rsaxe
Perkins Coie
Jr
gov
multco us
katevts
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
Isaak
com
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
com
Misha
Perkins
Coie
lake
Kevin
com Jennifer
law works
Diaz
kdiaz
org
or
aclu org
Sent
2 11 2014 3 38 45
Subject
FW
of
ord uscourts
aclu
From
Activity in
PM
MC
Case 6 13 cv 01834
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al Order on motion

for extension
time to answer a Complaint Petition
Ms Pew
we
in
to the court s order of this morning
proposed that the date
and
the order
reply briefs
for
to the extent
it
we
are not certain
who may wish
Although
rules for amicus briefs

possible
Thanks
so
while also giving
we
wanted
1 be
was overlooked
represents persons
court
April
in
the
our motion
that any amicus brief

to
an amicus
file
proposed
April
the court sufficient
up on one
to follow
same as
be
will
the
we
wanted to
we
filed
small
item
date
filing
We
could
to
unopposed
briefs
We
motion
didn
see that
place this issue before the
have been
contacted
order to give persons wishing
in
our
In
amicus
respectfully
support of plaintiffs
brief in
for
file
With respect
by a lawyer who
not find any date in the local
such a
brief
as much time as
them
time to review
much
very
Best regards
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
From
Sent
To
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
Federal Court
Tuesday
nobody
Subject
February
11 2014 9 51 AM
ord uscourts gov
Activity
in
Case 6 13 cv 01834
MC
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Order on motion for extension
of
time to answer a
Complaint Petition
This
is
an automatic
box
and
parties in a case
electronically
filed
users
To avoid
referenced
if
document
including
receipt is required
is
CM ECF system
Judicial Conference
pro se
a transcript
litigants
by law or
download a copy
later charges
the
the free copy
by
the filer
PACER
and 30 page
limit
was
viewing
do not apply
District Court
entered on 2 11 2014 at 9 50
Oregon
AM
PST
and
filed
all
documents
this first
Filing
to this
document during
District of
The
DO NOT RESPOND
of the United
to receive
directed
of each
Please
unattended
is

of record
by
on 2 11 2014
However
all
if
other
the
Case
Name
Geiger et al v
Case
Number
6 13 cv 01834
Kitzhaber
et al
MC
Filer
Docket
attached
Text
ORDER
Unopposed Motion
Granting Defendants
MC
19
Time
36
6 13 cv 01834
and 22
in
of
2 12 2014
Dispositive Motions from
memorandums
due by 3 18 2014
for
30PM on
case 6 13 cv 01834
from Geiger
Rummell
are
plaintiffs
MC
21
in
in
of
Time
to
Answer
MC
due 2 18 2014 Responses

due by 4 1 2014
Case
Name
Rummell
Case
Number
6 13 cv 02256
et al
MC
Cases 6 13 cv 01834
Associated
Kitzhaber
in
case
Motion for
Answer
is
due by
due by 2 18 2014 and amended

to Dispositive Motions are
Argument remains
Oral
Eugene Courtroom 2 before Judge Michael J McShane
34
Granting Joint Unopposed
case 6 13 cv 02256
are
plaintiffs
Replies to Dispositive Motions are
4 23 2014
MC
case 6 13 cv 02256
Extension
in
Extension
for
6 13 cv 02256
set
Ordered by
MC
cp
et al
MC
Filer
Text
ORDER
Unopposed Motion
Granting Defendants
MC
19
Time
36
6 13 cv 01834
and 22
in
Extension
of
2 12 2014
Dispositive Motions from
memorandums
1
30PM on
case 6 13 cv 01834
from Geiger
due by 3 18 2014
for
in
in
MC Notice
Anna
Middleton
Jennifer J
Katharine
Von
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Lake James
Misha
AD
sroberts
Sheila
Isaak
KJHolm
case 6 13 cv 02256
are
34
MC
in
case
Motion for
Answer
is
due by
due by 2 18 2014 and amended
due 2 18 2014 Responses

due by 4 1 2014
to Dispositive Motions are
Argument remains
Oral
MC
6 13 cv 02256
katevts
jjlslaw
com
multco us
jjlslaw
amy goodale
com
pjenkins
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
MIsaak
com
DAnderson
MC
cp
com
multco us
perkinscoie
com
docketpor
perkinscoie
com
law works com
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
com
com
jj
dorsayindianlaw
docketpor
perkinscoie
com
com
kellyd
dorsayindianlaw
maguero
perkinscoie
com
com
com
sheila
potter
doj state or us
samantha moon
doj state or us
shiori
iinuma
set
Ordered by
doj state or us
lake
leaston
perkinscoie
Potter
plaintiffs
Answer
aclu or org
Perriguey
Lea Ann Easton
in
to
Granting Joint Unopposed
Cases 6 13 cv 01834
Associated
jmiddleton
Ter Stegge
Holm
Kristina J
are
21
Time
anna joyce
Joyce
MC
of
Eugene Courtroom 2 before Judge Michael J McShane
6 13 cv 01834
Rummell
plaintiffs
MC
Replies to Dispositive Motions are
4 23 2014
Extension
for
case 6 13 cv 02256
jjls
Docket
attached
doj state or us
Thomas
Johnson
docketpor
TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
skroberts
ADargis
6 13 cv 01834
MC Notice
will
6 13 cv 02256
MC Notice
Anna
Goad
Middleton
Von
Katharine
Kevin Diaz
Lake James
AD
sroberts
Rose
Sheila
KJHolm
docketpor
sheila
Johnson
potter
com
may be imposed on
advise
contents
com
jjlslaw
com
multco us
perkinscoie
samantha moon
com
com
docketpor
perkinscoie
com
com
maguero
com
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
with
Treasury
contain
herein
or
iinuma
ajaclark
Department
and IRS
com
shiori
doj state or us
perkinscoie
com
mailed to
Coie LLP to be used
may
ADargis
doj state or us
com
perkinscoie
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
pjenkins
perkinscoie
docketpor
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
will
otherwise
by Perkins
or
DAnderson
perkinscoie
skroberts
230 DISCLOSURE
NOTICE
com
amy goodale
doj state or us
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
any transaction
jjlslaw
aclu org
IRS CIRCULAR
party
com
com
perkinscoie
MC Notice
that
mailed to
com
rsaxe
or written
com
law works com
lake
6 13 cv 02256
intended
perkinscoie
aclu org
multco us
perkinscoie
MIsaak
Isaak
Potter
jjlslaw
katevts
Perriguey
Saxe
ajaclark
aclu or org
perkinscoie
Thomas
kdiaz
aspiegel
com
doj state or us
jmiddleton
Ter Stegge
Holm
Kristina J
aclu org
anna joyce
Joyce
Jennifer J
Misha
agoad
jjls
Amanda
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Kevin Diaz
Sent
2 11 2014 3 38 57
Subject
Congratulations
Nice
job
H
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
aclu or org
PM
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
kdiaz
fellas
Sheila
1515
Sheila
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
5000
Nathan Freed Wessler
nwessler
aclu org
From
Kevin Diaz
To
Potter
CC
Sent
2 11 2014 3 39 51
Subject
RE
Thanks
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
Tuesday
Kevin Diaz
nwessler
aclu org
PM
Congratulations
Sheila
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
11 2014 3 39 PM
February
nwessler
aclu
org
Congratulations
Nice job
fellas
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
SW
Portland
Phone
Sheila
Subject
1515
Sheila
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
2 13 2014 9 03 09
Subject
Meeting
Heads up on
Me
Misha
Looking
Couch
Perkins Coie
Jr
H
AM
morning
list
Dave Fidanque
Kevin Diaz
forward
this
our attendance
to visiting the south
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Thomas
Sheila
and Vanessa Usui Chair
side of downtown
see you
in
at
BRO
bit
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
IRS CIRCULAR
perkinscoie
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Johnson
Sent
2 13 2014 9 04 18
Subject
Re
Thanks
See
H
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
Feb 13
Me
Thomas
at
forward
R
9 03 AM
Diaz
to
Couch
Dave
Perkins
Thomas
TRJohnson
Jr
Perkins
perkinscoie
Coie
com
wrote
Chair
at
list
Fidanque
and
the
side of
Coie
south
Vanessa
Usui
downtown
BRO
see you in a bit
LLP
Street
Floor
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
8918
CIRCULAR
contained
Perkins
4128
2176
2176
230
regulations
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
cannot
in error
any attachments
to
may contain
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
com
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
com mailto
avoiding
have
Johnson
com mailto
visiting
Johnson
Portland
IRS
morning
Justice
perkinscoie
Kevin
N W
Tenth
FAX
of
up on our attendance
Looking
this
Perkins Coie
Trial Counsel
2014
Misha
1120
Meeting
R Jr
AM
Potter
TRJohnson
Heads
Thomas
you soon
Sheila
On
Sheila
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
2 13 2014 9 05 14
Subject
RE
It
s now
Thomas
1120
a heavy
Tenth
Couch
AM
group
Perkins
on our side which

Coie
is
good
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
Perkins Coie
Jr
Meeting this morning
lawyer
Johnson
N W
Thomas
Sheila
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
To
Sheila
Johnson
Subject
Thanks
Thomas
Meeting
See
you soon
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
Feb 13
Me
Thomas
Coie
Justice
Diaz
to
Couch
OR
503
503
E MAIL
Johnson
com mailto
Dave
visiting
Perkins
Thomas
TRJohnson
Jr
Perkins
perkinscoie
Coie
com
wrote
Chair
at
list
Fidanque
and
the
side of
Coie
south
Vanessa
Usui
downtown
BRO
see you in a bit
LLP
Street
97209
727
914
346
8918
CIRCULAR
contained
Perkins
4128
2176
2176
230
regulations
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
in error
any attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
compliance
unless
cannot
to
may contain
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
otherwise
any attachments
be used
the
com
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
com mailto
avoiding
This
Perkins
9 03 AM
Johnson
503
CELL
have
or us
Floor
PHONE
IRS
at
forward
Portland
FAX
of
perkinscoie
Kevin
N W
Tenth
doj state
Trial Counsel
2014
Misha
1120
Jr
potter
9 04 AM
this morning
Looking
sheila
2014
Potter
TRJohnson
Heads
mailto
Re
Sheila
On
February 13
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
copying
or disclosing
that
privileged
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
If
you
delete
the
you
NOTICE
e mail may contain
information
is
confidential
or otherwise
exempt from
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
you are not
the
addressee
confidential
and
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
2 13 2014 9 05 44
Subject
RE
not
physically
Thomas
1120
Couch
AM
Meeting this morning
Perkins
Coie
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
Perkins Coie
Jr
whatever
Johnson
N W
Tenth
but
Thomas
Sheila
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com
Original Message
From
Johnson
Sent
Thursday
To
Potter
Thomas
Sheila
Subject
RE
It
a heavy
s now
Thomas
1120
Tenth
Couch
Perkins
2014
Coie
9 05 AM
this morning
lawyer
group
Perkins
on our side which

Coie
is
good
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
Jr
Meeting
Johnson
N W
February 13
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
To
Sheila
Johnson
Subject
Thanks
Thomas
Meeting
See
you soon
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
Feb 13
Me
Thomas
forward
R
at
or us
Perkins
Coie
Justice
9 03 AM
Diaz
to
Johnson
Couch
Johnson
com mailto
Dave
visiting
Perkins
Thomas
TRJohnson
Jr
perkinscoie
Perkins
Coie
com
wrote
Chair
at
list
Fidanque
and
the
side of
Coie
south
Vanessa
Usui
downtown
BRO
see you in a bit
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
FAX
of
perkinscoie
Kevin
N W
Tenth
doj state
Trial Counsel
2014
Misha
1120
Jr
potter
9 04 AM
this morning
Looking
sheila
2014
Potter
TRJohnson
Heads
mailto
Re
Sheila
On
February 13
503
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com mailto
com
IRS
CIRCULAR
230
regulations
contained
Perkins
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
avoiding
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
message
and
it
in error
This
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
keep
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
information
applicable
that
any attachments
be used
to
otherwise
the
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
copying
or disclosing
that
privileged
the
IRS
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
confidential
by reply email
and
any federal
Code
information
and
immediately
contents
Thank
or
ii
addressed
If
you
delete
the
you
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
cannot
without
expressly indicated
including
may contain
any attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
compliance
unless
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
have
To
inform you that
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
is
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Potter
To
Johnson
Sent
2 13 2014 9 06 52
Subject
Re
laughing
dimensions
actually
in the
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
On
Thomas
figured
of
Perkins Coie
morning
that
you and
Misha probably
hadn
ballooned
weeks
2014
Justice
at
9 05 AM
perkinscoie
com
but
Johnson
N W
Couch
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
wrote
whatever
Perkins
Coie
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
this
last couple
physically
Tenth
Meeting
R Jr
AM
Trial Counsel
Feb 13
1120
Thomas
Potter
TRJohnson
not
Sheila
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com
Original Message
From
Johnson
Sent
Thursday
To
Potter
Thomas
Sheila
Subject
RE
It
a heavy
s now
Thomas
1120
Tenth
Couch
Perkins
2014
Coie
9 05 AM
this morning
lawyer
group
Perkins
on our side which
Coie
is
good
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
Jr
Meeting
Johnson
N W
February 13
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
To
Johnson
Subject
Thanks
Sheila
Thomas
Meeting
See
you soon
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
Me
mailto
Feb 13
Jr
potter
doj state
or us
9 04 AM
Perkins
Coie
this morning
Trial Counsel
2014
of
at
Justice
9 03 AM
perkinscoie
Misha
Kevin
forward
Diaz
to
Johnson
com mailto
Looking
sheila
2014
Potter
TRJohnson
Heads
Re
Sheila
On
February 13
Dave
visiting
Thomas
TRJohnson
Jr
perkinscoie
Perkins
com
Coie
wrote
list
Fidanque
and
the
side of
south
Vanessa
Usui
downtown
Chair
at
BRO
see you in a bit
up to
shocking
new
Thomas
1120
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
IRS
97209
727
914
346
contained
Perkins
8918
230
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
LLP
to
be used
that
marketing
and
ensure
unless
compliance
any attachments
be used
or recommending
to
by the
taxpayer
another
com
expressly indicated
including
cannot
party
otherwise
is
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
and
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
ii
addressed
or any attachments
NOTICE
This
received
and
communication
it
in error
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
without
privileged
or other
the
by reply email
copying
sender
or disclosing
the
confidential
and
information
immediately
contents
Thank
If
you
delete
the
you
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
may contain
please advise
any attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
context
To
inform you that
penalties
promoting
This
com mailto
avoiding
herein
4128
2176
CIRCULAR
message
LLP
2176
regulations
have
Coie
Floor
Portland
FAX
Perkins
Street
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Potter
To
Johnson
Sheila
Thomas
misaak
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
2 13 2014 4 33 51
Subject
Conferral certification
Looking
at
at
issue
case
LR
7 1
in the
among
Something
what
motion
about
and
Perkins Coie
Jr
like
a certification
concluded
that
that
has the
virtue
being
requirements
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
we
of
cannot
Oregon
Department
Potter
Phone
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
Portland
971
com
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
Coie
PM
ourselves
SW
perkinscoie
that
they
counsel
were
met to
unable
to
discuss
resolve
the
the
legal questions
dispute
in this
themselves
certification
1515
TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
673
5000
completely
in fact
literally
just agree
to
true
resolve
while
the
meeting
dispute
the
From
Isaak
To
katevts
multco us
CC
Johnson
Thomas
Misha
Perkins
Coie
Perkins Coie
Jr
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
Sheila
Potter
H
Sent
2 13 2014 6 07 45
Subject
Rummell
conferral
PM
certification
Kate
As you know
the Rummell
are
filing
confer and certify to the court the result
We
between
a motion
for
summary judgment on
are happy to confer by telephone
our team and yours satisfy the conferral
if
Local Rule 7 1 requires that
Tuesday
you
but
like
believe
that prior
This leaves the question of how to characterize
obligation
we
conversations
your client s
on the motion
position
We
plaintiffs
discussed
this earlier
counsel conferred
That solution
is
in
fine
by us
copied on this email
today with Sheila Potter
good
faith
Do
and concluded
you agree
that
and she
they were unable to resolve
Or would you
like
us to characterize
something along the lines of
suggested
the
your
in this
dispute
client
case among themselves
s position
in
some
other
way
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Katharine
To
Isaak
CC
Johnson
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Perkins
Thomas
Coie
Jr
Perkins Coie
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Potter
Sheila
H
Sent
2 14 2014 9 27 53
Subject
Re Rummell
AM
conferral
certification
Hi Misha
can imagine what you might say
brief
summary
proposed
is
me
or give
fine
a call
in
in
your
MSJ
the event
but
there
is
it
would only be a guess on
something
we
can agree on
my part
If
we
Can you
can
agree
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Thu
Feb 13 2014
at
6 07
PM
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
misaak
perkinscoie
com
wrote
please
send
me
the sentence
you
Kate
As you know
the Rummell
are
filing
We
a motion
summary judgment on
for
between
obligation
if
we
Tuesday
you
but
like
believe
that prior
conversations
your client s
on the motion
position
We
plaintiffs
discussed
That solution
this earlier
counsel conferred
is
good
in
fine
by us
and concluded
faith
Do
that
Or would you
you agree
and she

like
us to characterize
suggested
the
your
dispute
client

in this
s position
in
some
other
way
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
com
IRS CIRCULAR 230
we
regulations
this
inform you that
communication
used
DISCLOSURE
including
any attachments

another
NOTICE
received
party
Internal
any transaction
This communication
it
in error
attachments
without
is
for the
may
otherwise
purpose
ii
of
any
avoiding
promoting
herein
Department
and IRS
federal tax advice
not intended
Revenue Code or
or matter addressed
with Treasury
penalties that
marketing
in
be
to
or any attachments
to
may be imposed
or recommending
information
If
copying
contained
Coie LLP
Thank you
you have
message and any
From
Isaak
To
Misha
Katharine
CC
Johnson
Perkins
Coie
VON TER STEGGE

Thomas R Jr Perkins
Coie
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Potter
Sheila
H
Sent
2 14 2014 9 38 01
Subject
RE
Yes
course
of
will
Rummell
AM
conferral
certification
you in a few minutes
call
Misha
Misha Isaak
Coie LLP
Perkins
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Sent
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
To
Isaak
Cc
Johnson
sheila
Misha
Perkins
Thomas R
us
Coie
Jr
Coie
Perkins
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
jjlslaw
Potter
Sheila
doj state or us
potter
Subject
multco
mailto katevts
14 2014 9 28 AM
February
Friday
Re
Rummell
conferral
certification
Hi Misha
can imagine what you might say
brief
summary
proposed
is
me
or give
fine
a call
in
in
your
MSJ
the event
but
there
would only be a guess on
it
is
something
we
my part
can agree on
If
we
Can you
can
me
send
please
agree
the sentence
you
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
On Thu
Feb 13 2014
at
6 07
PM
Misha
Isaak
Perkins Coie
misaak
perkinscoie
com
wrote
Kate
As you know
the Rummell
are
filing
We
between
position
We
plaintiffs
discussed
That solution
this earlier
is
in
fine
good
by us
faith
Do
Thanks
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
and concluded
you agree
Misha
for
summary judgment on
obligation
if
Tuesday
you
like

but
believe
that prior
we
conversations
your client s
on the motion
counsel conferred
1120
a motion
that
and she
Or would you
like
us to characterize
suggested
the
your
dispute
client

in this
s position
in
some
other
way
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
com
IRS CIRCULAR 230
we
regulations
this
communication
used
DISCLOSURE
inform you that

including
any attachments

another
NOTICE
received
party
Internal
any transaction
This communication
it
in error
attachments
without
is
for the
purpose
may
ii
of
avoiding
promoting
herein
Department
any
and IRS
federal tax advice
not intended
Revenue Code or
or matter addressed
with Treasury
otherwise
Coie LLP
penalties that
marketing
to
in
be
may be imposed
or recommending
to
or any attachments
information
If
copying
contained
Thank you
you have
message and any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
2 14 2014 3 10 23
Subject
Question
Sheila
This communication
Notice
intended
recipient
for
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
including
and purpose
communication
to another
is strictly
we
IRS regulations
any attachments
party
contain
is
you are not the
If
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
not intended
any transaction
by law
inform you that any
is
protected
that
it
and
to
avoiding
recommending
this
notified
may
any attachments
individual
Notice 2
PM
including
specific
and are hereby
attachments
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
contained
used
promoting marketing
ii
in this
for the
or
herein
Hi Sheila
hate to bother you but
in
same gender cases
Windsor
Also
nd
in
talked
considered
Circuit
had
court issued
Lea Ann
tell
me how many
amicus
briefs
Circuit
about his comment on possible mandamus action
think the probability of occurring
thought
Can you
you
the amicus briefs in Perry in the Ninth
AG
the
has signed onto
and Supreme Court and
and Supreme Court
with Misha today
and
for
know she signed
file
would be unsuccessful
Circuit
circuit
have a question
I
the Attorney General to

likely
an appeal
if
the
of this option
mandamus
the
of
AG
a
unlikely
favorable
was
while
AG
is
forced
ago
would
file
decision
to
file
The
His
theory is thatcitizen
a
theory
could
to the Ninth Circuit Although
notice
of appeal
but think probability is
the
incredibly
notice
itself
small
appeal and seek a stay pending
the
is
one
that
had
file
mandamus and
the
mandamus
is jurisdictional in
Plus one would think

appeal
force
action
Ninth
if
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
2 17 2014 12 21 35
Subject
RE
Anna
but
I
and
Anna
don
ways
choices
that
aren
AG has to
mandamus
worried
things
any SSM amicus
action
Lea
Sent
Friday
Ann
Potter
Subject
about
could
briefs
a mandamus
go pear
up for mandamus
appeal
From
To
of
that
we
ve
signed onto
other
than
those two
s checking
m really not
the
know
PM
Question
every
would
mailto
February 14
and
LEaston
2014
but
and
rendered
die a quick
Easton
Sheila
review
decision
action
shaped
m glad
that
no court
in the
is
other
ignominious
that
people
just isn t
going
one
to
are thinking
of
them
entertain
side s favor
about
all
Discretionary
the
have
notion
to
that
believe
the
that
any
death
dorsayindianlaw
com
3 10 PM
Question
Notice
This
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
privileged
is
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
and
Code
or matter
or
addressed
herein
Hi Sheila
I
hate
to
bother
you but
the
AG has signed onto
the
Ninth
Also
one
that
Circuit and
talked
that
had
a citizen
favorable
have
Supreme
a question
gender
and
could
mandamus
if
to
the
file
the
think
Ninth
AG was
in Ninth
probability
incredibly small
AG would
Lea
Ann
file
appeal
and
Circuit
seek
to
had
Plus
Can
know
you tell
me how
she signed the
in 2nd
probability
Circuit and
force
the
Although
file
notice
thought
one
of
would
a stay pending
the
of
occurring
Attorney
the
Supreme
of
appeal
appeal
if
to
notice
a while
a circuit
itself
court
His theory
The
theory
an appeal
likely
ago
briefs
in Perry
in
Court
action
file
amicus
briefs
unlikely
action
the
this option
think
is
General
mandamus
many
amicus
his comment on possible mandamus
the
and
Windsor
Circuit
forced
jurisdictional
is
about
considered
for you
cases
Court and
with Misha today
decision
unsuccessful
in same
but
would
of
is
is
be
is
think
issued
mandamus
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
2 17 2014 12 23 53
Subject
RE
Thanks
Potter
Sent
Sheila
Monday
to the
Nevada appeal
to the Ninth
s the same states as
It
Circuit
in
mailto sheila
on Thursday
during the meeting
conversations
questions from the
agree
you
Misha
is just
catching
fall
doj state or us
potter
2014 12 22 PM
February 17
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE Question
Anna and
Anna
and
the questions
my nightmares and
From
To
She signed onto
with
Based on
to
PM
and Windsor
Perry
up
Question
found one more
Sheila
don
know
of any
SSM
amicus
we
briefs that
two
ve signed onto other than those
but
s checking
not worried about a
really
things could go pear shaped

review
and no court
is
the other side s favor
mandamus
action
but that just isn
going to entertain
have to
m glad
that people are thinking
one of them Discretionary choices
the notion that the
believe that
any mandamus
AG
about
all
up
aren t
theways that
for
mandamus
has to appeal everydecision rendered in
action
would die a quick and ignominious
death
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
LEaston
mailto
Subject
Question
Notice
This communication
intended
recipient
for
individual
you should delete
Notice 2
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
including
and purpose
communication
to another
is strictly
we
IRS regulations
any attachments
party
contain
is
you are not the
If
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
not intended
any transaction
by law
inform you that any
is
protected
that
it
and
to
avoiding
recommending
this
notified
may
any attachments
including
specific
and are hereby
attachments
com
dorsayindianlaw
14 2014 3 10 PM
February
Friday
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
Hi Sheila
in
same gender cases
Windsor
Also
nd
in
talked
considered
Circuit
have a question
I
with Misha today
and
for
know she signed
Can you
you
tell
me how many
amicus
briefs
Circuit
AG
the
has signed onto
and Supreme Court


likely
file
an appeal
if
the
of
AG
is
unlikely
favorable
was
forced
decision
to
file
The
His
a
theory
could
notice
of appeal
the
notice
itself
is
one
file
the
that
had
mandamus and force

mandamus action
Ninth
Circuit
circuit
had
thought
court issued
of this option
mandamus
the
while
AG
ago
would
file
incredibly
small
the
if
appeal
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
2 17 2014 12 26 18
Subject
RE
Heh
m not
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
I
Sheila
found
From
Potter
Monday
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Anna
but
I
and
Anna
Sheila
She
and
and
dorsayindianlaw
us all
com
12 24 PM
signed onto
to
the
Nevada
appeal
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
It
s the
Windsor
conversations
up to
during
my nightmares and
mailto
February 17
sheila
2014
potter
the
meeting
questions
doj state
on Thursday
from the
agree
with you
fall
or us
12 22 PM
Easton
Question
don
that
aren
AG has to
mandamus
know
of
worried
things
any SSM amicus
action
Lea
Sent
Friday
Ann
Potter
Subject
about
could
briefs
a mandamus
go pear
up for mandamus
appeal
From
To
of
that
we
ve
signed onto
other
than
those two
s checking
ways
choices
more
questions
m really not
the
one
just catching
Sent
To
LEaston
2014
ahead
as in Perry
on the
Misha is
mailto
you are way
Question
states
Based
Easton
see that
February 17
RE
Thanks
same
surprised to
Ann
PM
Question
every
would
mailto
February 14
and
LEaston
2014
but
and
rendered
die a quick
Easton
Sheila
review
decision
action
shaped
m glad
that
no court
in the
is
other
ignominious
that
people
just isn t
going
one
to
are thinking
of
them
entertain
side s favor
about
all
Discretionary
the
have
notion
to
that
believe
the
that
any
death
dorsayindianlaw
com
3 10 PM
Question
Notice
This
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
privileged
is
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
and
Code
or matter
or
addressed
herein
Hi Sheila
I
hate
to
bother
you but
the
AG has signed onto
the
Ninth
Also
one
that
Circuit and
talked
that
had
a citizen
favorable
have
Supreme
a question
gender
and
could
mandamus
if
to
the
file
the
think
Ninth
AG was
in Ninth
probability
incredibly small
AG would
file
appeal
and
Circuit
seek
to
had
Plus
Can
know
you tell
me how
she signed the
in 2nd
probability
Circuit and
force
the
Although
file
notice
thought
one
of
would
a stay pending
the
of
occurring
Attorney
the
Supreme
of
appeal
appeal
if
to
notice
a while
a circuit
itself
court
His theory
The
theory
an appeal
likely
ago
briefs
in Perry
in
Court
action
file
amicus
briefs
unlikely
action
the
this option
think
is
General
mandamus
many
amicus
his comment on possible mandamus
the
and
Windsor
Circuit
forced
jurisdictional
is
about
considered
for you
cases
Court and
with Misha today
decision
unsuccessful
in same
but
would
of
is
is
be
is
think
issued
mandamus
the
Lea
Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
2 18 2014 3 14 15
Subject
RE
haven
From
Sent
To
Potter
lately
it
PM
Question
the amicus briefs that the
mailto sheila
AG
signed onto are very

enlightening
doj state or us
potter
2014 12 26 PM
February 17
Lea Ann Easton
Heh
Sent
To
RE Question
m not
From
Potter
To
found one more
She signed onto
and
the questions
my nightmares and
From
Sent
com
dorsayindianlaw
to the
Nevada appeal
to the Ninth
It
Circuit
s the same states as
in
and Windsor
Based on
to
all
2014 12 24 PM
February 17
Sheila
LEaston
mailto
of us
RE Question
Thanks
Perry
way ahead
surprised to see that you are
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
Subject
Potter
Monday
Sheila
conversations
during the meeting
questions from the
mailto sheila
on Thursday
agree
you
Misha
is just
catching
fall
doj state or us
potter
2014 12 22 PM
February 17
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE Question
Anna and
Anna
Sheila
Monday
Subject
up
mentioned
with
If
Sheila
don
know
of any
SSM
amicus
briefs that
we
two
but
s checking
really
not worried about a

review
and no court
is
mandamus
action
but that just isn
going to entertain
have to
m glad
the notion that the
believe that
any mandamus
AG
about
all
up
aren t
theways that
for
mandamus
action
death
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Potter
Sheila
LEaston
mailto
Question
Notice
This communication
recipient
attachments
for
including
specific
you should delete
and are hereby
To comply
with
any attachments
individual
this
notified
Notice 2
com
Subject
intended
dorsayindianlaw
14 2014 3 10 PM
February
that
it
communication
and
contain
is
we
protected
by law
If
you are not the
is strictly
IRS regulations
may
and purpose
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
US
federal tax advice
contained
in this
communication
purpose
of
including
recommending
any attachments
is
not intended
to
avoiding
to another
party
any transaction
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
used
for the
promoting marketing
ii
or
herein
Hi Sheila
in
same gender cases
Windsor
Also
nd
in
and
considered
circuit
had
thought
court issued
Can you
you
tell
me how many
amicus
briefs
AG
the
has signed onto
Circuit

file
Circuit
for
know she signed
and Supreme Court

likely
have a question
with Misha today
talked
Circuit
an appeal
if
the
of this option
mandamus
the
of
AG
a
unlikely
favorable
was
while
AG
is
forced
ago
would
decision
to
file
The
theory
could
notice
of appeal
file
His
a
the
incredibly
itself
notice
small
the
is
one
that
had
file
mandamus and
the
mandamus
force
action
Ninth
if
appeal
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
2 20 2014 8 04 44
Subject
Re
Don
On
Heh
From
Sent
To
m not
at
12 26
Potter
Subject
AM
Question
PM
the
Potter
AG s remarks
Sheila
surprised to see that you are
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
get to vet and edit
the Plaintiffs
Feb 17 2014
Sheila
mailto
February 17
Sheila
LEaston
sheila
potter
way ahead
doj state or us
of us
wrote
all
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 12 24 PM
RE Question
Thanks
found one more
She signed onto to the Nevada
appeal
to the Ninth Circuit
It
the same states as in
Perry and Windsor
Based on the questions and conversations during the meeting on Thursday

up to
From
Sent
To
my nightmares
Potter
Monday
mailto sheila
potter
Misha
is
just
catching
fall
doj state or us
2014 12 22 PM
RE Question
Anna and
Anna
February 17
agree with you
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Sheila
and questions from the
don
know
of any
amicus
briefs that
we
two
but
s checking
really
not worried about a

review
and no court

death
SSM
is
I
mandamus
action
but that just isn
going to entertain
have to
m glad
the notion that the
believe that
any mandamus
AG
about
aren t
all
up
theways that
for
mandamus
action
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
To
February
Friday
Potter
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
Sheila
Subject
mailto
14 2014 3 10 PM
Question
This communication
Notice
and purpose

disclosure
copying
may
any attachments
including
and
protected
is
or con
contain privileged
by law
you are not the
If
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
fidential
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
with
including
penalties
any transaction
IRS
we
regulations
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
is
inform you that any
Code
Revenue
or
promoting
ii
federal tax advice
and cannot be
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
marketing
to another
party
herein
Hi Sheila
Can you
hate to bother you but I have a question for you
in
same gender cases
Windsor
Also
in
nd
know
think
likely
if
comment on
and think the probability of occurring

file
had thought
a circuit court issued
is
possible
mandamus
The
unlikely
theory
is
action
His theory
that
citizen
an appeal of a favorable decision to the Ninth Cir
Ninth Circuit
the
briefs
AG
has signed onto
Circuit and Supreme Court
force the Attorney General to

action
amicus
she signed the amicus briefs in Perry in the Ninth Cir cuit and Supreme Court and
talked with Misha today about his
considered
me how many
tell
if
the
AG
was
forced
to
file
notice of appeal
of this option a while ago but think probability
mandamus
the
AG
would
file
appeal
is
cuit
t
is
could
one
file
that
had
mandamus and
Although the mandamus
he notice
itself
incredibly small
is
Plus
jurisdictional in
one would
and seek a stay pe nding the appeal
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
H
VON TER STEGGE katevts multco us
2 20 2014 12 11 55 PM
FW STATEMENT OF OREGON ATTORNEY GENERAL ELLEN ROSENBLUM ON THE SUBJECT
OF PENDING LITIGATION CHALLENGING SAME SEX MARRIAGE BAN
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
Subject
Attachments
image001
From
Kron Michael
Sent
Thursday
To
ELLEN
http
OF OREGON
CHALLENGING
intranet
M
CONTACT
images state
ROSENBLUM
ON
THE
SUBJECT OF PENDING
Michael
OF OREGON
CHALLENGING
behalf
the
state
though
States
find
not
oath
The
which
is
the
always
to
oath
the
and
my office
doj state
ON
THE
supreme
or us
SUBJECT OF PENDING
of
United
defends
have
States
and
it
LITIGATION
suit against
the
state
us to
of
state
sex
am named
on my office
in litigation
Of course
the
same
to
as a
appear
on
claims
The
uphold
the
Constitution
falls
couples
s constitution
our land
brought
on marriage by couples
Governor
also requires
law
couples
answer the
our state
took
four
s ban
in the
with the
court
uphold
we
kron
ROSENBLUM
Oregon
enshrined
along
before
ELLEN
are aware
that
equality
lawsuits
sworn an oath
same
to
michael c
BAN
Oregonians
court
right of
in the
Usually
jpg
1959
GENERAL
MARRIAGE
As many
defendant
602
or us mailto
ATTORNEY
SEX
a federal
the
503
doj state
SAME
morning
of
174x126
GENERAL
Kron
STATEMENT
violates
seal color
RELEASE
kron
the
ELLEN
BAN
2014
michael c
have
GENERAL
MARRIAGE
General
ATTORNEY
IMMEDIATE
February 20
ATTORNEY
SEX
OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE
asking
SAME
BOSS
Attorney
DEPARTMENT
Good
12 06 PM
General
FREDERICK
FOR
2014
ROSENBLUM
Attorney
Deputy
STATEMENT
LITIGATION
jpg
February 20
Kron Michael
Subject
Sheila
lawyers
the
we
As Attorney
in my office
Constitution
all
take
these
of
General
have
the
oaths
sworn
United
very
seriously
So it
that
is
after
the
constitution
filed
available
The
court
study
of
there
The
the
government
not
people
Clause
of
least be what
refuse
to
commitments of
the
unless
the
that
defend
of
the
informed
U S
people
the
stand
before
prohibition
same
Judge
is
the
law
developing
honor
the
opposite
calls
and
of
it
is
a good
sets of
sex
you today
of
to
in our state
A document
McShane
called
announce
an
our decision
a brief explanation
gives
reason
people
rational
is
now
basis
clear
by same
Marriage is
that
way
is
right to
answer
Copies
are
for those
there
that
is
in order
be treated
treatment
for different
sex couples
the
the
for unequal
rules or laws
commitments made
sex couples
Oregon
Constitution
there
establishes different
in this area
to
will
marriages between
also represents
Protection
must at
law
Oregon
consideration
earlier this morning
equally by their government

time the
and
Justice
for you
our office
Equal
careful
Department
against
with the
Because
much
Oregon
That
sets of
is
any
people
differences
no rational
in the
loving
same
basis
way
couples
it
for
honors
become
family
to
each
other
and
to
their extended
couples
from marriage in Oregon
Because
we
these
cannot
lawsuits
identify a valid
from marrying
McShane
to
We
be explaining
will
who
that
that
state
reason
in Oregon
s prohibition
be more
than
by April will
are now
and
find
to
Judge
fully
to
address
is
state
no good
to
ourselves
against
welcome
there
reason
to
their marriages recognized
for the
we
our legal reasoning
will
are due
two cases
Thank
prevent
unable
the
to
marriages between
McShane
review
couples
stand
as this case
and
same
sex
who
before
have
federal
filed
Judge
two men or two women
our pleadings
our analysis
exclude
here
proceeds
as they
that
of
the
Those
are filed
other
of
Plaintiffs
parties in
consolidated
State
of
releases
Complaint in Geiger et
pdf
Oregon
pdf
geiger
State
of
releases
Oregon
complaint
s Answer
geiger
pdf
in Geiger et
et
al v
Kitzhaber
www
of
http
www
doj state
or us
et
al
http
doj state
www
doj state
or us
or us releases
et
al v
Kitzhaber
in Rummell
Justice
et
al
http
www
doj state
or us
pdf
et
al
Kitzhaber
rummell answer pdf
Department
al
a pdf
rummell complaint
s Answer
Kitzhaber
Exhibit A http
Complaint in Rummell
Oregon
pdf
al v
pdf
answer pdf
answer exhibit
Plaintiffs
releases
geiger
http
www
doj state
or us
et
al
http
www
you
Legal
you
releases
pdf
the
are interested
papers
the
defend
families
or from having
doj state
or us
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
2 20 2014
Subject
Meetings
What
s your direct
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
dial
Will
call
as soon
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
katevts
multco us
are running into meetings
Potter
Portland
Phone
H
VON TER STEGGE
2 03 31 PM
Sheila
971
673
5000
as I
have
the
chance
to
do so
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
2 20 2014
Subject
Re
It
VON TER STEGGE

H
2 04 47 PM
Sheila
Meetings
are running into meetings
988 7338
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
What
County Attorney
97214
fax
Feb 20 2014
at
2 03
s your direct dial
Sheila
Deputy
PM
Will
Potter
call
Sheila
as soon as
H
I
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
have the chance to do so
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
multco us
On Thu
1515
Multnomah
Portland
Fifth
OR
Avenue
Justice
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
971 673 5000
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
2 24 2014 8 00 39
Subject
New
Sheila
H
AM
York Times
Sheila
Your
office
Lake James
made
the
new york
times
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
PLEASE DON T PRINT

This e mail
may
CONSERVE RESOURCES
or privileged
information
and attachments
lake
If
you are not the
ntended recipient
this
please notify
e mail and
all
copies
From
To
Potter
Sent
2 24 2014 7 02 39
Subject
Holder Calls for Scrutiny
Good
timing
http
www
bans html
nytimes
r
Sheila
com 2014 02 25
H
PM
us holder
of
Gay
Marriage Laws
says state attorneys
NYTimes com
general dont
have to
defend gay marriage
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
2 26 2014 12 08 33
Subject
NYTimes
Sheila
com
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
PM
Down
Federal Judge Strikes
Sent by uncleannie3
comcast
Federal
Texas
Gay
Marriage Ban
net
Judge
Strikes
Down
Texas
Gay Marriage Ban

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
federal
judge declared Texas
unconstitutional
appeals
Or copy and paste

http
To
nyti
get
this
Wednesday
ban on gay marriage
but
left
it
in place until an
court can rule on the case
URL
into
to
New
your browser
ms 1pu8Wua
unlimited
access
all
York Times
articles
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
To ensure
delivery
to
your
inbox
please add
nytdirect
nytimes
com
to
your address book
ADVERTISEMENT
Copyright
2014
The New York Times Company

York
NYTimes com 620 Eighth Avenue New
NY 10018
From
Potter Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
2 26 2014 12 25 57
Subject
Re NYTimes com
PM
Federal
Judge Strikes Down Texas Gay Marriage Ban
Texas
Wow
On Feb 26
2014
at 12 08 PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com m ailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw
Sent
by uncleannie3
http
https
comcast net mailto uncleannie3
i1 nyt com images misc
nytlogo194x27
www nytimes com images common
icons
com
wrote
comcast net
gif
t
wb 75 gif
Federal Judge Strikes Down Texa s Gay Marriage Ban

http
p nytimes com email re location InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUmPiZsNBipaJ
d9464 email type eta task id 1393445202432937 regi id 0
By THE
ASSOCIATED
user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895b
PRESS
A federal judge declared Texas

ban on gay marr iage unconstitutional
an appeals court can rule on the case
Wednesday
Or
copy and paste this URL into your browser
http
nyti ms 1pu8Wua
http
p nytimes com email re location InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUmPiZsNBipaJ
but left
user id be9e
it
in place until
993bd4e086fc50573a4895b
To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles

subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
http
p nytimes com email re location 4z5Q7LhI
KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQi
YyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB vYPH
y JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk
user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
email type eta task id 139
3445202432937 regi id 0
To ensure
delivery
to
your inbox
please
add
nytdirect
nytimes
com mailto
nytdirect
nytim
es com
to your address
book
Advertisement
http
graphics8 nytimes com adx images ADS 36 46 ad 364630 BELLE NYT336x90 jpg
http
www nytimes com adx
bin adx click html type goto opzn page secure nytimes com mem emailthis htmlpos Frame6A sn2 6da5bd5a
78e3a
6e94878e camp FoxSearchlight AT2014 1911120D
264 sn1 9101f6f7
nyt5 ad BELLE NYT336x90 jpg goto http 3A 2F 2Fwww 2Efoxsearchlight
2Ecom 2Fbelle 2F
Copyright
2014 http
KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtd
pfztygRnz23j1z6n
Dpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ
email type eta task id 1393445202432937 re
gi id 0
The New York Times
Company http
KUv6vqdu zT DtUzLlQEcSh user id be9e993bd4e086
fc5057
3a4895bd9464 email type eta task id 1393445202432937 regi id 0
NYTimes com http
NYTimes com
620 Eighth
Avenue New York
NY 10018
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter Sheila
Sent
2 26 2014 12 34 44
Subject
RE NYTimes com
Do you have time
From
Sent
To
for
Potter Sheila
Wednesday
call
later
26
today
February
PM
Federal
2014 12 26
doj state or
us
PM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Re NYTimes
com
Federal
Judge
Strikes
Down Texas Gay
Marriage
Ban
Texas
Wow
On Feb 26 2014
at
12 08
Sent by uncleannie3
http
https
i1 nyt
www
com
comcast
Lea Ann Easton
net
LEaston
mailto uncleannie3
dorsayindianlaw
comcast
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
net
images misc nytlogo194x27 gif
nytimes

http
PM
com
images
Down
p nytimes com email
common
icons
wb
75
gif
Texas Gay Marriage Ban

re
location
InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUmPiZsNBipaJ
user
id
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd946
4 email
type
etatask
1393445202432937
id
regi
id
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A federal
the
judge declared
unconstitutional
Wednesday
but
left
in
it
place until an appeals court can rule on
case
Or copy and paste
this
URL
into
p nytimes com email
http
4 email
To
ban on gay marriage
Texas
type
etatask
your browser
to
New
all
p nytimes com email
re
http
nyti
regi
York Times
subscribe
articles
To ensure
regi
delivery to
id
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895b
today
d946
See Subscription Options
KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q
4z5Q7LhI
location
user
id
Hy JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk
1393445202432937
ms 1pu8Wua
location
1393445202432937
id
unlimited access
get
http
re
user
id
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
email
1X6bqVB vYP
type
etatask
id
id
your inbox
please add nytdirect
nytimes
com
mailto nytdirect
nytimes
com
your address book
to
Advertisement
graphics8
http
ck html type
com adx images ADS 36 46 ad 364630 BELLE
goto opzn page
6e94878e camp
nyt5 ad
nytimes
BELLE
Fox
secure nytimes
Searchlight
NYT336x90
com mem
emailthis
htmlpos
NYT336x90
Frame6A sn2
jpg
www
http
6da5bd5a
nytimes
78e3a264 sn1
com adx
bin adx
9101f6f7
AT2014 1911120D
jpg goto
http
3A
2F
2Fwww
2Efoxsearchlight
2Ecom
2F
2Fbelle
Copyright
2014
http
p nytimes com email
x4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ
gi
id
Company
The
http
New
location
New
4z5Q7LhI
id
be9e993b
re
location
KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDp
d4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
email
type
etatask
id
1393445202432937
re
York Times
p nytimes com email
bd9464 email type

Eighth Avenue
re
user
etatask
York
id
NY
1393445202432937
10018
4z5Q7LhI
regi
id
KUv6vqdu zT DtUzLlQEcSh
NYTimes com
user
id
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895
Error Hyperlink
reference not valid
620
cli
This e mail
may
contain
are not the addressee or
information
it
that
is
privileged
confidential
immediately by reply e mail keep the contents confidential

system
or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable
or otherwise that you have received
and immediately
delete the
this
e mail in error please advise
law
If
me
message and any attachments from your
you
From
Potter Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
2 26 2014 12 35 51
Subject
Re NYTimes com
I do
I have meetings
that work for you
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
PM
Federal
pretty solidly till
4 00
but then
ll
be in the car for the next
hou
r or so
Would
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Department of Justice
On Feb 26
2014
at 12 34 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Do you have
time for a cal l
com
wrote
later today
From
Potter Sheila H
mailto sheila potter doj state
Wednesday
February 26
2014 12 26 PM
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Re
NYTimes com http
NYTimes com
Federal
or us
Judge
Strikes
Down Texas
Gay Marriage Ban
Texas
Wow
On Feb 26
2014
at 12 08 PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3e
wrote
Sent
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
by
uncleannie3
comcast net 3e
http
com
nytlogo194x27
comca
gif
st net
mailto uncleannie3
comcast net
mailto uncleannie3
https
www
Federal Judge
nytimes
Strikes
com images common icons
Down
Texas
wb 75
gif
Gay Marriage Ban
http
p nytimes com email re location InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUmPiZsNBipaJ user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895b
http
p nytimes com email re location InCMR7g4BCKC
2wiZPkcVUmPiZsNBipaJ user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9
464 email type eta task id 1393445202432937 regi i
d 0 3e
ban on gay marriage unconstitutional
Wednesday
but left
it
in place until
Or
copy and paste this U RL into your browser
http
nyti ms 1pu8Wua
http
http
p nytimes com email re location InCMR7g
4BCKC
email type eta task id 1393445202432937 regi i
d 0 3e
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
http
p nytimes com email re loca tion 4z5Q7LhI KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB
vYPH
http
KV
BjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW
3445202432937 regi id 0
vYPHy JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk
em
5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB
ail type eta task id 1393445202432937 regi id 0 3e
To ensure delivery to your inbox

please add
nytdirect
nytimes com mailto nytdirect
nytimes com
om 3e
to your address book
mailto nytdirect
nytimes com
mailto nytdirect
nytimes c
Advertisement
http
http
www nytimes com adx
bin adx click html type goto opzn page secure nytimes com mem emailthis htmlpos Frame6A sn2 6da5bd5a 78e3a
264 sn1 9101f6f7
2Ecom 2Fbelle 2F
http
www n
ytimes com
adx bin adx click html type goto opzn page secure nytimes com mem emailthis htmlpos Frame6A sn2 6da5bd5a 78
e3a264 sn1 9101f6f7 6e94878e camp FoxSearchlight AT2014 1911120D
2Ecom
2Fbelle 2F 3e
Copyright
2014
eQ
http
user
p nytimes
id
com email
re location
4z5Q7LhI
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56E
email
type
eta task
id
1393445202432937
regi
id
http
p nytimes com email re
location 4z5Q7LhI
KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ
user id be
email type eta task id 1393445202432937 regi id 0 3e
The New York Times
9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
Company http
p nytimes com email re location 4z5Q7LhI KUv6vqdu zT DtUzLlQEcSh user id be9e993bd4e086fc5057
http
p nytimes com email re location 4z5Q7
LhI KUv6vqdu zT DtUzLlQEcSh user id be9e993bd4e086fc5057
3a4895bd9464 email type eta task id 1393445202432937
regi id 0 3e
NYTimes com http
NYTimes com
http
NYTimes com
http
NYTimes com 3e
620 Eighth
Avenue New York
NY 10018
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
This e mail may contain information th at is privileged

confidential
ke
ep the contents confidential
and immediately delete the message and any attachments
from your system
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter Sheila
Sent
2 26 2014 12 47 01
Subject
Re NYTimes com
Yes
will
be
in
my office
PM
Federal
503 790 9060
Lea Ann
do
have meetings
Sheila
12 36
at
pretty solidly
Trial
On Feb 26 2014
at
Do
for
To
sheila potter
4 00 but then
ll
be
in the
doj state or us
wrote
car for the next hour or so
Would
that
work
for
you
Counsel
you have time
From
Potter Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Sent
PM
till
On Feb 26 2014
Potter Sheila
Wednesday
Justice
12 34
PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
a call later today
February 26
2014 12 26
doj state or us
PM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Texas
Wow
Re NYTimes com
Error Hyperlink reference not valid Federal Judge
Strikes
Down
wrote
On Feb 26 2014
n
at
12 08
PM
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
Lea Ann Easton
com
3e
mailto LEaston
3e
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEasto
wrote
Sent by
uncleannie3
comcast
net
mailto uncleannie3
comcast
net
mailto uncleannie3
comcast
net
mailto uncleannie3
comcast
net
3e
http
i1 nyt
www
https
com
images misc nytlogo194x27 gif
nytimes
com
Down

http
4e
images
p nytimes com email
mail type
etatask
mPiZsNBipaJ user
id
common
icons
wb
75
gif

re
location
1393445202432937
regi
id
http
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
id
email
user
type
etatask
id
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd946
id
p nytimes com email re
location
InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVU
1393445202432937
regi
id
3e
A federal
the
judge declared
Or copy and paste

http
4 email
get
this
URL
p nytimes com email

type
etatask
mPiZsNBipaJ user
To
Texas
ban on gay marriage
unconstitutional
Wednesday
but
eft
it
in
place until an appeals court can rule on
case
id
id
unlimited access
into
re
your browser
location
http
nyti
1393445202432937
regi
id
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
to
all
New
ms 1pu8Wua
York Times
articles
http
email
subscribe
user
p nytimes com email

type
today
etatask
id
id
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd946
re location
InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVU
1393445202432937
regi
id
3e
p nytimes com email
http
re
KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB
4z5Q7LhI
location
Hy JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk
1393445202432937
regi
id
vYPHy
9464 email
1393445202432937
To ensure
eta task
delivery to
nytimes
nytdirect
id
re location
id
type
KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzk
4z5Q7LhI
JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk
regi
email
user
id
vYP
etatask
id
g7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJI
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd
3e
please add
your inbox
com
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
id
p nytimes com email
http
W5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB
type
user
mailto nytdirect
com
nytimes
mailto nytdirect
nytimes
com
mailto nytdirect
com
nytimes
3e
to
your address book
Advertisement
graphics8
http
ck html type
om
com adx
goto opzn page
6e94878e camp
BELLE
nyt5 ad
nytimes
adx bin adx
64 sn1
9101f6f7
nyt5 ad
BELLE
ADS
secure nytimes
NYT336x90
jpg goto
com mem
http
goto opzn page
html type
6e94878e camp
NYT336x90
BELLE
36 46 ad 364630
emailthis
htmlpos
NYT336x90
Frame6A sn2
jpg
www
http
6da5bd5a
nytimes
78e3a264 sn1
com adx
bin adx
cli
9101f6f7
AT2014 1911120D
FoxSearchlight
click
images
FoxSearchlight
jpg goto
http
2Fwww
2F
secure nytimes
3A
2Ecom
2Efoxsearchlight
com mem
emailthis
htmlpos
2F
2Fbelle
Frame6A sn2
http
www
6da5bd5a
nytimes c
78e3a2
AT2014 1911120D
2F
2Fwww
2Ecom
2Efoxsearchlight
2F
2Fbelle
3e
Copyright
2014
http
p nytimes com email
x4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ
gi
id
http
re
id
p nytimes com email
re
nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ
regi
id
Company
3e
http
The
etatask
DtUzLlQEcSh user
id
620 Eighth Avenue
id
KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDp
993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
location
user
id
4z5Q7LhI
email
type
etatask
id
1393445202432937
re
KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
re
location
1393445202432937
4z5Q7LhI
regi
id
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
NYTimes com Error Hyperlink

valid
be9e
email
type
etatask
1393445202432937
id
York Times
p nytimes com email
bd9464 email type
New
4z5Q7LhI
location
user
New
reference not valid
York
NY
10018
KUv6vqdu zT DtUzLlQEcSh
http
email
type
user
p nytimes com email

etatask
id
id
re
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895
location
1393445202432937
Error Hyperlink reference not valid
4z5Q7LhI
regi
id
Error Hyperlink
KUv6vqdu
3e
reference not
This e mail
may
contain
are not the addressee or
information
it
that
is
privileged
confidential
immediately by reply e mail keep the contents confidential

system
or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable
and immediately
delete the
this
e mail in error please advise
law
If
me
message and any attachments from your
you
From
Potter Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
2 26 2014 12 50 20
Subject
Re NYTimes com
Will
PM
Federal
give you a call
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Department of Just ice
On Feb 26
2014
at 12 47 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Yes
will
Lea
Ann
be in my office
pretty solidly till
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
Chief Trial Counsel

4 00
doj state or us
but then
ll
wrote
be in the car for the next
hour or so
Would
Potter
On Feb 26
2014
at 12 34 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Do you have
From
Sent
wrote
503 790 9060
On Feb 26
2014
at 12 36 PM
Potter Sheila H
I do
I have meetings
that work for you
com
time for a call
mailto LEaston
com
Federal Judge
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
later today
Potter Sheila H
mailto sheila potter doj state
Wednesday
February 26
2014 12 26 PM
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Re
NYTimes
Marriage Ban
com
com http
NYTimes
com
http
or us
NYTimes
Strikes
Down
Texas
Gay
Texas
Wow
On Feb 26 2014 at 12 08 PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston dorsayindianlaw
com mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
mailto LEaston
LEaston dorsayindianlaw com
mailto LEaston dorsayindianlaw com 3e 3e
wrote
Sent by
uncleannie3
omcast net
http
https
comcast net
mailto uncleannie3
comcast net 3e
nytlogo194x27
icons
mailto unclean
nie3
dorsayindianlaw
comcast net
com
mailto
mailto uncleannie3
gif
t
wb 75 gif
Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Gay Marriage Ban

http
http
p nytimes com email re location InCMR7g4BCKC
2wiZPkcVUmPiZsNBipaJ user id be9e993bd4e086fc505
73a4895bd9464 email type eta task id 1393445202432937 regi i
d 0 3e
ban on gay marriage unconstitutional
Wednesday
but left
it
in place until
Or
http
nyti ms 1pu8Wua
http
http
p nytimes com email re locati
on InCMR7g4BCKC
email type eta task id 1393445202432937 regi i
d 0 3e
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
http
p nytimes com ema il re location 4z5Q7LhI
vYPH
http
p nytimes com email re location 4
z5Q7LhI KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW
3445202432937 regi id 0
vYPHy JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk
em
5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB
ail
type
To ensure
eta task
id
delivery
to
1393445202432937
your inbox
please
regi
id
3e
add
nytdirect nytimes com mailto nytdirect nytimes com

mailto nytdirect
om
mailto nytdirect nytimes com 3e
to your address book
nytimes com
mailto nytdirect
nytimes c
Advertisement
http
graphics8 nytimes com adx images ADS 36 46 ad 364630 BELLE NYT336x90 jp g
http
www nytimes com adx
264 sn1 9101f6f7
nyt5 ad BELLE NYT336x90 jpg goto http 3A 2F 2Fwww 2Efoxse
archlight 2Ecom 2Fbelle 2F
http
www nytimes com
adx bin adx click html type goto opzn page secure nytimes com mem emailthis htmlpos Frame6A sn2 6da5bd5a 78
e3a264 sn1 9101f6f7 6e94878e camp FoxSearchlight AT2014 1911120D
nyt5 ad BELLE NYT336x90 jpg goto
http 3A 2F 2Fwww 2Efoxsearchlight
2Ecom 2Fbelle 2F 3e
Copyright
2014 http
KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6n
email type eta
task id 1393445202432937
gi id 0
http
KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j
1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ
re
7 regi id 0 3 e
The New York Times
Company http
KUv6vqdu zT DtUzLlQEcSh user id be9e993bd4e086fc5057
http
p nytimes com email re location 4z5Q7
LhI KUv6vqdu zT DtUzLlQEcSh user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
regi id 0 3e
NYTimes com
http
NYTimes com
http
NYTimes com
http
NYTimes com 3e
620 Eighth
NYTimes com http
Avenue New York
NY 10018
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE

confidential
from your system
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Katharine
Sent
3 7 2014 6 31 25
Subject
Gay
was
www
DOWNLOAD
http
www
Hell
huffingtonpost
Sheila
and
thought
In
michigan
gay marriage
trial
Gay
Michigan
Says Expert Witness In Michigan Gay Marriage
com 2014 03 07
HUFFPOST
law works com
Potter
People Are Going To Hell Says Expert Witness
reading this article on Huffington Post
Gay People Are Going To
http
VON TER STEGGE

PM
in
Marriage Trial
reading
it
too
Trial
gay people go to
hell
n 4914470 html
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
3 8 2014 8 48 08
Subject
Legal Update
http
equalityontrial
discrimination wont
Lake James
Sheila
com 2014 03 07
challenged
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
AM
Geiger v
Kitz
smithkline
beecham
v abbott labs ninth
circuit
case involving
lgbt
juror
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
Isaak
Misha
Sheila
Potter
Sent
3 10 2014 12 25 15
Subject
FW
Perkins
Coie
Thomas
Johnson
Jr
Perkins Coie Jennifer
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
PM
12 17668 Beverly Sevcik
et al
v Brian Sandoval
NOTICE
et al
Oral Argument
Schedule
Attached
No ce
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
this
any disclosure
including
communica on and
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
conde
you are
If
copying
may contain
any a achments
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on

hereby no ed that
and are
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
we
communica on
avoiding
any a achments
including
inform you that any

is
on
ma er addressed
or
Ninth Circuit has set oral argument
is
S federal tax advi
Code
party any transac
or
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ii
ce contained
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
Nevada case
set in Sevcik
for April
th
at
am
Lea Ann
From
ca9
Sent
To
ca9 uscourts
ecfnoticing
Monday
March 10
gov
mailto
ca9
ca9
ecfnoticing
uscourts gov
2014 12 23 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
et
al
Brian

of record
and
parties in a case
electronically
filed
To avoid
users
if
including
receipt is required
later charges
NOTICE
Oral Argument
Judicial Conference
of the United
Sandoval
pro se
al
litigants
by law or
download a copy
et
to receive
directed
of each
by
Schedule
Attached
the filer
PACER
document during
all
this first
viewing
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice
The
of Docket
Activity
was
entered on 03 10 2014 at 12 22 33
Case
Name
Beverly Sevcik
Case
Number
12 17668
Docket
Notice
View
et al
Brian Sandoval
PM PDT
filed
on 03 10 2014
Courtroom 3
San Francisco
and
et al
Text
of Oral Argument on Wednesday
April 9
2014
the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here
09 00
AM
documents
CA
all
other
When
you have reviewed the calendar
complete the form
file
Mr
David Chris Albright
Mr
Byron Jeffords Babione
Mary
Boccuzzi
Lisa Bonauto
Tara
Jr
Attorney
Bower
Gerard Vincent Bradley
Professor
Laura
Attorney
Borelli
Daniel
ECF
be electronically mailed to
will
Carmine
download
via Appellate
it
AW
9008892
Notice
and
Brill
Mr Dean
Robert Broyles Chief Counsel
Marek Bute
Holly Carmichael
Matthew
Joseph Christian Attorney
Carla Christofferson
Mr
David
Melanie
Mr
Codell
Attorney
Cristol
Jon Davidson
Miss Elizabeth
Kelly Harrison
Dove
William
Mr
Deeley
Attorney
Duncan
Alexander Dushku
Doctor John
Mr
Kent Ehat
Stephen
Mr Thomas
Suzanne
Mr
Attorney
Eastman
Attorney
Molnar Fisher
General
Solicitor
Goldberg
Wayne Howle
Charles
Solicitor
General
Moez Kaba
Kaplan
Herbert
Ms
Katherine
Raghav
Mr
Mr
Price Minter
Ms
Genevieve
Nadeau
Mr
Nicholas
Mr Abram
Sarah
Staci J
Piepmeier
Renn
Attorney
Ms
March Smith
Attorney
Sestito
Kevin Trent Snider
Monte
Attorney
Attorney
Legal Director
Jerome Cary Roth
Ms Dawn
Paul
John Pafford
Attorney
M O Donnell
Pratt
Legal Director
William Mosier
Munn
Mr
Attorney
Elizabeth McAlister
Randal Richard
Peter
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
S LiMandri
Shannon
Mr Mark
Ms
District
Keating
Krishnapriyan
Charles
Mary
Deputy
Ann
Attorney
Chief Counsel
Stewart
Christina Swarns
Craig
Taylor
Mr Rocky
Chiu feng Tsai
Attorney
the
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
or return the completed
OF HEARING NOTICE
form to
SAN FRANCISCO
form
Office
Mr
Robert
Mr
Mr
Joseph Leo Ward
Tyler
Attorney
Jr
Lynn Dennis Wardle
Senior Deputy
Attorney
District
Attorney
From
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Misha Isaak
Sent
3 10 2014 12 42 30
Subject
Re 12 17668
Tom
Johnson
Middleton
Jennifer
Sheila
Potter
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
PM
Beverly Sevcik
et al
Brian Sandoval
NOTICE
et al
Oral Argument
Schedule
Attached
If
the 9th circuit rules before
There
is
a jury
McShane
moot our
could
it
McShane
before judge
trial
the
week
case
may
of the April 7th that
settle
freeing up time on the court s
docket
If
the court were to open dates for us
Lake James
could
we
be
all
available
during that
week
for oral argument
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Mar
No ce
10 2014
This
intended
Civil
at
Justice
12 25
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
any disclosure
this
PM
Lea Ann Easton
including
communica on and
and
is
com
dorsayindianlaw
may contain
any a achments
protected
privileged or
by law
If
communica on
or the taking
wrote
conde
you are
copying
LEaston
n al informa on

hereby no ed that
and are
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
avoiding
we
communica on
including
any a achments
inform you that any

is
Code
party any transac
on
ma er addressed
or
is
S federal tax advi

or
promo ng marke ng
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
set in Sevcik
Nevada case
for April
th
at
am
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
ca9
ca9 uscourts gov
ecfnoticing
Monday
March 10
mailto
ca9
ca9
ecfnoticing
uscourts gov
2014 12 23 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
et
al
Brian

of record
filed
users
and
parties in a case
electronically
To avoid
if
including
receipt is required
later charges
NOTICE
Oral Argument
Judicial Conference
of the United
Sandoval
pro se
al
litigants
by law or
download a copy
et
to receive
directed
of each
by
Schedule
Attached
the filer
PACER
document during
all
documents
this first
viewing
all
other
Notice
The
of Docket
Activity
was
entered on 03 10 2014 at 12 22 33
Case
Name
Beverly Sevcik
Case
Number
12 17668
Docket
Brian Sandoval
When
complete the form
April 9
Notice
and
file
Mr
Mr
Mary
Boccuzzi
Lisa Bonauto
Jr
Attorney
Bower
Professor
Laura
Attorney
Borelli
Daniel
ECF
will
Carmine
download
via Appellate
it
AW
9008892
Brill
Mr Dean
Marek Bute
Holly Carmichael
Matthew
David
Melanie
Mr
Codell
Attorney
Cristol
Jon Davidson
Miss Elizabeth
Kelly Harrison
Dove
William
Mr
Deeley
Attorney
Duncan
Alexander Dushku
Doctor John
Mr
Kent Ehat
Stephen
Mr Thomas
Suzanne
Mr
Attorney
Eastman
Attorney
Molnar Fisher
General
Solicitor
Goldberg
Charles
Wayne Howle
Solicitor
General
Moez Kaba
Herbert
Ms
Deputy
Ann
District
Keating
Krishnapriyan
Charles
Mary
Mr
Kaplan
Katherine
Raghav
Mr
on 03 10 2014
Courtroom 3
San Francisco
et al
2014
09 00
AM
CA
View
Mr
filed
and
Text
Notice
Tara
et al
PM PDT
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
S LiMandri
Attorney
Elizabeth McAlister
Shannon
Price Minter
Legal Director
the
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OF HEARING NOTICE
form to
SAN FRANCISCO
form
Office
Mr Mark
William Mosier
Randal Richard
Munn
Ms
Genevieve
Nadeau
Mr
Nicholas
Attorney
M O Donnell
Mr Abram John Pafford Attorney

Ms Sarah E Piepmeier Attorney
Staci J
Mr
Pratt
Peter
Renn
Attorney
Jerome Cary Roth
Ms Dawn
Paul
Legal Director
March Smith
Attorney
Kevin Trent Snider
Monte
Ms
Attorney
Sestito
Chief Counsel
Stewart
Christina Swarns
Craig
Taylor
Mr Rocky
Chiu feng Tsai
Mr
Mr
Robert
Mr
Lynn Dennis Wardle
Tyler
Joseph Leo Ward
Attorney
Attorney
Jr
Senior Deputy
Attorney
District
Attorney
From
Potter
To
Sheila
TRJohnson
JMiddleton
perkinscoie
com
Johnson
Isaak
Thomas
Misha
Jr
Perkins Coie
Perkins Coie
misaak
perkinscoie
com
com
jjlslaw
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
3 10 2014 3 05 18
PM
Subject
Geiger Rummell
MSJ
timing
All
The
Michigan
findings
next
of
week
response
If
the
and
to
judge
reasons
So
court
fact
they
Right
is
and
bucks
probably
the
address
goes
have
we
we
trend
anything
there
now
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
158
12th
Salem
503
Potter
947
Trial Counsel
Street
OR
97301
4700
NE
of
Justice
issue
If
decision
opinion
need
that
looks
that
for anything
But
of
like
almost all
any extra
I
sometime next
comes out
may ask for an extension

direction
won
a written decision
the
same
asking
Sheila
to
law
in the
probably
re not
of
we
in the
might
Sheila
going
conclusions
on Monday
week
with
or Tuesday
of
a day or two on our MSJ

it
could
the
use some
others
have
talking
about
for the
same
up that
we
time
wanted
to
give
you a heads
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
3 11 2014 2 14 19
Subject
Geiger Oral argument
March 11 2014
Deputy
at
Sheila
1 46 22
Clerk
http
www
law works com
http
www
law works com
Katharine
PM
PM PDT
VON TER STEGGE
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Potter
Sent
3 11 2014 2 15 28
Subject
Re
am
Sheila
H
PM
free
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Deputy
PM
Mar 11 2014
at
2 14
March 11 2014
at
1 46 22
Tue
Clerk
http
www
law works com
http
www
law works com
Lake Perriguey
PM PDT
lake
law works com
wrote
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
3 11 2014 2 34 31
Subject
Fwd
Sheila
PM
sigh
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
Begin
forwarded
From
Lake
Date
March
To
Subject
Sheila
Geiger
March
Lake
law
works
2 14 19 PM
sheila
STEGGE
potter
katevts
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
PDT
doj state
or us mailto
multco us mailto
sheila
katevts
potter
doj state
or us
multco us
Oral argument
7th
Judge
Re
for oral argument
Clerk
United
States
District
of
431
503
tel
Madison
541
data
detectors
0 0
data
detectors
0 0
334
2340
tel
law
works
Perriguey
1928
503
20334
2340
Civil
www
law
works
com
Justice
LLC
Madison
Portland
503
20227
com http
James H
Works
Court
503
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
law
skype
lagojaime
Guardian
works
of
503
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
Justice
www
law
works
law
data
me know
x apple
of
503
x apple
let
x apple
Guardian
2014
Please
97205
tel
Pew
ord uscourts
works
Case No
Street
1928
lagojaime
SW
lake
al
4105
227
skype
1906
April 7
et
20431
Oregon
www
Lake
com mailto
Kitzhaber
Perriguey
http
OTLA
works
Charlene
LLC
Portland
503
law
al
detectors
District
James H
lake
mailto
gov
PDT
Oregon
4105
Works
SW
gov
1 46 22 PM
Pew
Charlene
1906
at
has Monday
data
Deputy
Lake
ord uscourts
2014
Geiger et
McShane
pm x apple
541
Pew
11
Perriguey
Subject
OTLA
on the
Charlene
Law
at
below
Date
Law
lake
2014
VON TER
From
To
message
11
Are you free

See
Justice
Perriguey
Potter
Katharine
of
com
if
com
6 13 cv
detectors
that
works
01834
MC
3 available
for counsel
at
2 30
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Sent
3 11 2014 3 45 06
Subject
RE
Lea Ann Easton
PM
et al
v Brian Sandoval
NOTICE
et al
Oral Argument
Schedule
Attached
haven
the
seen
time that
would
responses
Charlene
really rather
to
this e mail
provided
not
cut
it
The
that
believe
timing
close
would
that
am free
on Monday
be a real scramble
Are all
plaintiffs
afternoon
for us
counsel
though
united
at
2 30
and
in asking
I
for
this
I have to tell
you
Lake
I do not think that it
would be a good
push up oral argument
or to try to impose our timing on him
He
the
perceived
think
that
push
for a quick
this will
his time with this and

prepare
We
haven
decision
play very
get
filed
it
badly
rather
with him
right
What
our response
than
when
as he framed
he s already
you re cutting
yet
idea to push the judge to

really reacted unhappily to
out
you anticipate
of
it
a careful
told
the
us that
schedule
no replies
but
one
and
he wants
is
to
I
take
his time to
you don
know
that
no one will want a reply

And you don t know the judge s schedule or how much time he will
have to digest the arguments and to think through the law from his perspective
This would
give
the
judge
certainly
not
his clerk
less than
allow
a week
him to
as federal
from whatever
go into
argument
judges often
like
to
amicus
already
to
it
are available
I
From
think
Lake
it
that
Misha Isaak
10
Tom
Subject
Re
Schedule
Attached
time
idea
James Perriguey
Sent
Monday
March
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
at
s a bad
mailto
2014
law
it
represent
will
If
the
court
court
were
to
almost
a draft
opinion
with
works
that
we
join the
can
motion or agree
backfire
com
Jennifer
Beverly
Sevcik
Middleton
et
al v
Potter
Brian
Sheila
Sandoval
If the 9th circuit rules before McShane

it
could moot
There is a jury trial
before judge McShane the week of
up time on the
would
for the time you provided

and if
they
to the court that the state defendants
you may not
think
lake
It
through
12 43 PM
Johnson
12 17668
but
and
are filed
worked
do
I ll
check with my co counsel on their availability
I ll
let you know and then you may represent
do it
lawyers
briefs
having
Katharine
et
al
our case
the April 7th
VON TER
NOTICE
that
STEGGE
Oral Argument
may settle
freeing
s docket
open
dates
for us
could
we
www
works
com
all
be available
during
that
week
for oral
argument
Lake James H
Law Works LLC
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
http
skype
OTLA
On
Perriguey
Street
Oregon
97205
227
1928
334
2340
www law works

lagojaime
Guardian
Mar 10
LEaston
Notice
of
2014
com http
Civil
at
Justice
12 25 PM
dorsayindianlaw
This
information
Lea
Ann
com mailto
communication
intended
law
including
for a specific
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
com
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
or confidential
by law
If
you
are not the intended recipient

and are hereby notified that any disclosure
copying or
distribution
of
this communication
or the
taking
of
any action
based
on it
is
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
we
inform you that
any U S
federal
tax advice
contained
cannot
ii
be used
for the
promoting
including
purpose
marketing
of
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
is
penalties
another
not
under
party
intended
the
to
Internal
any transaction
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Circuit has set oral argument
Ninth
Lea
is
set in Sevcik
Nevada
case
for April 9th
at
9 am
Ann
From
ca9
mailto
Sent
To
ecfnoticing
ca9
Monday
Lea
Ann
March
Subject
12 17668
Attached
10
ACCESS
record
copy
of
and
all
directed
by the
filer
download
a copy
of
United
States
Notice
of
The
gov
uscourts
2014
Beverly
TO PUBLIC
attorneys of
electronic
uscourts
ca9
mailto
ca9
ecfnoticing
ca9
uscourts
al
NOTICE
gov
gov
12 23 PM
Easton
Schedule
NOTE
ca9
ecfnoticing
following
et
USERS
al v
Brian
Judicial
documents
PACER
filed
access
document
Appeals
Sandoval
Conference
parties in a case
each
Court of
Docket
Sevcik
including
of
fees
for the
apply
to
all
this first
Ninth
the
United
if
receipt
other
is
users
Oral Argument
States
pro se litigants
electronically
during
et
to
policy
permits
receive
one
required by law
To
avoid
free
or
later charges
viewing
Circuit
Activity
transaction
was
entered
on 03 10 2014
at
12 22 33 PM
PDT
and
filed
on 03 10 2014
Case Name
Beverly
Sevcik
et
al v
Brian
Sandoval
et
al
Case Number
https
12 17668
ecf
TransportRoom
Docket
Text
Notice
of
the
view
When
Oral Argument Calendar
php
caseno
you have
9008892
ca9
the
ECF or return
David
Chris Albright
Byron
Jeffords
Carmine D
the
download
calendar
completed
Lisa Bonauto
Tara
mailed to
Attorney
Babione
Boccuzzi
Mary
Jr
Attorney
Borelli
W
Bower
Professor
W
Dean
Gerard
Robert
Bute
Holly
Carmichael
Matthew
Vincent
Bradley
Brill
Marek
Carla
gov
be electronically
Mr
Mr
April 9
AW
will
Daniel
servlet
jspcaseId
for your case
calendar
uscourts
Mr
Laura
cmecf
238600
2014
09 00 A M
Courtroom
San
here
http
www
ca9
uscourts
gov
calendar
12 17668
reviewed
www
Appellate
Notice
gov
CA
form http
via
uscourts
Oral Argument on Wednesday
Francisco
View
ca9
servlet DocketReportFilter
Broyles
Joseph Christian
Christofferson
Chief
Counsel
Attorney
info
the
php
form to
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
view
SAN
Forms
OF HEARING
complete
FRANCISCO Office
the
NOTICE
form
and
file
it
Mr
David
Melanie
Mr
Codell
Cristol
Miss
Elizabeth L
Kelly Harrison
William C
Mr
John
Mr
Stephen
Mr
Thomas
Suzanne
Attorney
Eastman
Kent
Ehat
Molnar
Attorney
Fisher
Howle
Solicitor General
Kaba
Kaplan
Katherine
Raghav
Deputy
Ann
District
Keating
Krishnapriyan
Charles S
Mary
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
LiMandri
Attorney
Elizabeth McAlister
Mr
Shannon
Mr
Mark
Randal
Price
Minter
Richard
Director
Attorney
Munn
Genevieve
Mr
Nicholas
Mr
Abram John
Ms
Sarah E Piepmeier
Nadeau
M
Staci
Pratt
Peter
Renn
O Donnell
Pafford
Legal
Attorney
Attorney
Director
Attorney
Mr
Jerome Cary Roth
Ms
Dawn
Paul
Legal
William Mosier
Ms
Attorney
Sestito
March
Smith
Kevin
Trent
Monte
Ms
Solicitor General
Goldberg
Herbert
Mr
Attorney
Dushku
Charles Wayne
Moez
Ms
Deeley
Dove
Duncan
Alexander
Doctor
Mr
Attorney
Jon Davidson
Attorney
Snider
Chief
Counsel
Tsai
Attorney
Stewart
Christina Swarns
Craig
Taylor
Mr
Rocky
Chiu
Mr
Robert
Mr
Joseph Leo
Mr
Lynn
feng
Tyler
Dennis
Ward
Attorney
Jr
Wardle
Senior
Attorney
Deputy
District
Attorney
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
3 11 2014 3 56 58
Subject
Re 12 17668
Sheila
PM
Beverly Sevcik
et al
Brian Sandoval
NOTICE
et al
Oral Argument
Schedule
Attached
Sheila
clerk simply noted that there
Sheila
concerned
that
room
the
welcome your sense of
I really
that
know so
that
Lake James
one
is
asking the court
and do not want to push something

appear that
we
that
at this
point
make anyone
going to
is
involved
despite the fact that everyone in
are pushing the judge
to agree
While Charlene has noted

simply letting us
this
play badly or otherwise
will
it
appears
No
time on the docket
is
there
if
an opening
is
we
we
want
it
is
not clear to
me
whether the
court
is
inviting
fill
The
us to
or
it
can ask to move the dates
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Mar
11
haven
2014
Civil
3 45
at
Are
that close
have to
tell
all
quick decision
him when he
plaintis
try to
will
have to
is
that
sheila
potter
believe that I
wrote
doj state or us
am
real scramble
do not think
that
it
free
on Monday
for us
though
afternoon at 2 30
and
would
really
the time that
rather not cut
would be a good idea to push the judge to push up
impose our timing on him

as he framed
no one
will
He
it
he wants to take
We
haven
want a reply
And
think that this
his time with this

t
led
and get
our response yet
you don
know
whatever
amicus
briefs are
argument already having worked through a
led
It
it
right
you
What you
anticipate
his perspective
would almost
draft opinion with his clerk
certainly
as
for a
play very badly with
the judge s schedule or
arguments and to think through the law from
week from
will
oral
push
really reacted unhappily to the

perceived
a careful one and
it
his time to prepare
digest the
judge less than a

into
s already told us that
know
Sheila
counsel united in asking for this
rather than
out of the schedule
he
Potter
The timing would be a
you Lake
argument or to
you don
PM
seen responses to this e mail
Charlene provided
Justice
federal
no
re cu ing
replies but
how much
time
This would give the

not allow him to go
judges often like to
do
ll
check with
know and
but you
my co
then you
may
counsel on their availability for the time you provided
may
represent to the court that the state defendants
not represent that
we
join the
motion or agree to
it
think
and they
if
can do
lawyers are available

it
s a
badidea
and
it
let
ll
you
at that time
think
it
will
backre
From
James Perriguey
Lake
Sent
Monday
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Misha Isaak
Subject
If
Re
Tom
Johnson
is
a jury
et
McShane
before judge
trial
Middleton
Jennifer
the 9th circuit rules before
There
com
law works
mailto lake
2014 12 43 PM
March 10
al
Potter
Brian
moot our
could
it
McShane
the
Sheila
Sandoval
week
et
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
NOTICE
al
Oral Argument
Schedule Attached
case
may
of the April 7th that
settle
freeing up time on the court s
docket
If
the court were to open dates for us
Lake James
could
we
be
all
available
during that
week
for oral argument
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Mar
No ce
10 2014
This
intended
Civil
at
Justice
12 25
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
any disclosure
this
PM
Lea Ann Easton
including
and
is
com
dorsayindianlaw
may contain
any a achments
communica on and
protected
privileged or
by law
If
communica on
or the taking
wrote
conde
you are
copying
LEaston
n al informa on

hereby no ed that
and are
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
avoiding
we
communica on
including
any a achments
inform you that any

is
Code
party any transac
on
ma er addressed
or
S federal tax advi

or
promo ng marke ng
ii
or recom
is
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
th
ce contained
and cannot be us
set in Sevcik
Nevada case
for April
at
am
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
ca9
ca9 uscourts gov
ecfnoticing
Monday
March 10
mailto
ca9
ca9
ecfnoticing
uscourts gov
2014 12 23 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
et
al
Brian

of record
filed
and
parties in a case
electronically
if
including
receipt is required
NOTICE
Oral Argument
Judicial Conference
of the United
Sandoval
pro se
et
al
litigants
by law or
to receive
directed
by
Schedule
Attached
the filer
PACER
all
documents
all
other
To avoid
users
download a copy
later charges
of each
document during
this first
viewing
Notice
The
of Docket
Activity
was
entered on 03 10 2014 at 12 22 33
Case
Name
Beverly Sevcik
Case
Number
12 17668
Docket
Brian Sandoval
April 9
Notice
and
file
Mr
Mr
Mary
Boccuzzi
Lisa Bonauto
Attorney
Jr
Attorney
Bower
Professor
Laura
ECF
Borelli
Daniel
via Appellate
it
will
Carmine
download
AW
9008892
Brill
Mr Dean
Marek Bute
Holly Carmichael
Matthew
David
Melanie
Mr
Codell
Attorney
Cristol
Jon Davidson
Miss Elizabeth
Kelly Harrison
Dove
William
Mr
Deeley
Attorney
Duncan
Alexander Dushku
Doctor John
Mr
Kent Ehat
Stephen
Mr Thomas
Suzanne
Mr
Attorney
Eastman
Attorney
Molnar Fisher
General
Solicitor
Goldberg
Charles
Wayne Howle
Solicitor
General
Moez Kaba
Herbert
Ms
Kaplan
Katherine
Raghav
Mr
on 03 10 2014
Courtroom 3
San Francisco
et al
Text
complete the form
Mr
filed
and
2014
09 00
AM
CA
When
Tara
Notice
View
et al
PM PDT
Deputy
Ann
Keating
Krishnapriyan
Charles
District
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
S LiMandri
Attorney
the
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OF HEARING NOTICE
form to
SAN FRANCISCO
form
Office
Mary
Elizabeth McAlister
Mr Shannon Price Minter

Mr Mark William Mosier
Randal Richard
Munn
Ms
Mr
Nadeau
Genevieve
Ms
Staci J
Piepmeier
Pratt
Peter
John Pafford
Sarah
Attorney
March Smith
Ms
Attorney
Attorney
Kevin Trent Snider
Monte
Attorney
Attorney
Legal Director
Renn
Mr Jerome Cary Roth

Ms Dawn Sestito
Paul
Attorney
M O Donnell
Nicholas
Mr Abram
Legal Director
Chief Counsel
Stewart
Christina Swarns
Craig
Taylor
Mr Rocky
Chiu feng Tsai
Mr
Robert
Mr
Mr
Joseph Leo Ward
Tyler
Attorney
Attorney
Senior Deputy
Jr
Lynn Dennis Wardle
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
Attorney
Attorney
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
District
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
3 11 2014 4 02 43
Subject
Re 12 17668
Sheila
PM
Beverly Sevcik
et al
Brian Sandoval
et al
NOTICE
Oral Argument
Schedule
Attached
don
see anything
a time that
shouldn
And
in there
you could
that
ask for
if
we
The
d read
as an invitation
you moved
to
reset
from the
argument
court
She
m suggesting
s giving
that
you
you
we
can
agree
wrong
He
won
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief
all
like
want
court
any appearance
of
still
gets
to
us forgetting
decide
that
if
we
re collectively
right or
you know
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Mar 11
2014
of
at
Justice
3 57 PM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
wrote
Sheila
The
clerk
simply noted
that
there
is
time on the
docket
No
one
is
asking
the
court
at
this
point
Sheila
make
the
really welcome
anyone
judge
While
involved
despite
Charlene
inviting
your sense of
concerned
the
fact
fill
it
that
that
has noted
us to
that
this and
it
will
everyone
there
is
do not
in the
room
an opening
or simply letting
want
play badly
us know
to
appears
it
push
something
or otherwise
is
not
so that
to
we
that
that
is
we
going
to
are pushing
agree
clear
if
appear
to
me whether
want
we
can
the
ask to
court
move
is
the
dates
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
Guardian
Mar 11
sheila
I
law
haven
the
seen
time that
would
works
of
2014
potter
97205
com http
Civil
at
www
law
3 45 PM
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
responses
to
really rather
com
Justice
doj state
Charlene
works
this e mail
provided
not
cut
it
The
that
sheila
I
potter
believe
timing
close
would
doj state
that
or us
am free
wrote
on Monday
be a real scramble
Are all
plaintiffs
afternoon
for us
counsel
though
united
at
2 30
and
in asking
for
the
to
this
I
have
push
the
to
tell
you
Lake
up oral argument
perceived
think
that
push
this will
no one
We
will
have
to
give
the
haven
want
digest
certainly
judge
not
do not
try
for a quick
get
filed
arguments
less than
allow
And
badly
What
you don
and
to
would
the
through
out
argument
the
already
of
the
push
us that
but
or how
worked
It
through
one
is
to
I
take
his time to
you don
much
to
and
he wants
t
know
that
time he will
from his perspective

are filed
judge
unhappily
a careful
schedule
no replies
briefs
having
it
told
s schedule
law
to
really reacted
he s already
judge
amicus
idea
He
as he framed
you anticipate
know
think
than
when
be a good
on him
you re cutting
yet
from whatever
go into
it
rather
with him
right
a week
him to
that
impose our timing
our response
a reply
the
it
think
to
decision
play very

prepare
or to
would
This
would
almost
a draft
opinion
with
his clerk
I
ll
check
do it
lawyers
to
it
as federal
judges often
with my co
counsel
ll
let
you know
are available
I
think
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
it
Ann
March
Lea
Cc
Misha Isaak
Tom
Re
Schedule
Attached
the
9th
is
the
that
for the
you may represent
time
idea
but
and
mailto
2014
do
on their availability
then
to
you may not
think
lake
it
law
time you provided

court
represent
will
works
the
that
that
the
we
and
state
join the
if
they
can
defendants
motion or agree
backfire
com
12 43 PM
Johnson
12 17668
circuit
court
Sevcik
rules before
court
were
Jennifer
Beverly
a jury trial
up time on the
If
10
to
Easton
Subject
There
at
s a bad
James Perriguey
To
If
and
like
before
Middleton
et
al v
McShane
judge
it
McShane
Potter
Brian
could
the
moot
week
Sheila
Sandoval
of
Katharine
et
al
VON TER
NOTICE
STEGGE
Oral Argument
our case
the
April 7th
that
may settle
freeing
s docket
to
open
dates
for us
could
we
all
www
works
com
be available
during
that
week
for oral
argument
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
law
Guardian
Mar 10
LEaston
Notice
97205
227
works
of
com http
Civil
2014
at
Justice
12 25 PM
dorsayindianlaw
This
Lea
Ann
com mailto
communication
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
Easton
LEaston
including
information
the
law
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
com
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
privileged
is
protected
this communication
notified
taking
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
herein
Ninth
Lea
set in Sevcik
Nevada
case
for April 9th
at
9 am
Ann
From
ca9
mailto
Sent
To
is
ecfnoticing
ca9
Monday
Lea
Ann
March
Subject
12 17668
Attached
TO PUBLIC
attorneys of
electronic
uscourts
ca9
10
2014
gov
uscourts
mailto
ca9
ecfnoticing
ca9
uscourts
al
NOTICE
gov
gov
12 23 PM
Easton
Schedule
NOTE
ca9
ecfnoticing
Beverly
ACCESS
record
copy
of
and
all
directed
by the
filer
download
a copy
of
each
Sevcik
USERS
et
al v
Judicial
parties in a case
documents
PACER
filed
access
document
Brian
Conference
including
electronically
fees
during
Sandoval
apply
to
this first
all
of
et
the
United
if
receipt
other
viewing
users
Oral Argument
States
pro se litigants
is
To
to
policy
receive
permits
one
required by law
avoid
or
addressed
free
or
later charges
United
States
Notice
of
The
Court of
Docket
following
Appeals
for the
Ninth
Circuit
Activity
transaction
was
entered
on 03 10 2014
at
12 22 33 PM
PDT
and
filed
on 03 10 2014
Case Name
Beverly
Sevcik
et
al v
Brian
Sandoval
et
al
Case Number
https
12 17668
ecf
TransportRoom
Docket
Text
Notice
of
the
view
When
php
caseno
you have
9008892
ca9
the
ECF or return
David
Chris Albright
Byron
Jeffords
Carmine D
Lisa Bonauto
Tara
Gerard
Robert
Holly
Carmichael
Matthew
David
Attorney
Alexander
John
Stephen
Thomas
Suzanne
Deeley
Dove
Attorney
Duncan
Mr
Dushku
Attorney
Eastman
Kent
Ehat
Molnar
Attorney
Fisher
Solicitor General
Goldberg
Charles Wayne
Howle
Solicitor General
Kaba
Herbert
Kaplan
Katherine
Raghav
Mary
Counsel
Attorney
Elizabeth L
Mr
Mr
Chief
Jon Davidson
Doctor
Ms
Bradley
Codell
Cristol
William C
Moez
Vincent
Joseph Christian
Kelly Harrison
Mr
Jr
Attorney
Christofferson
Melanie
Mr
Attorney
Broyles
Bute
Miss
mailed to
Brill
Dean
Deputy
Ann
District
Keating
Krishnapriyan
Charles S
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
LiMandri
Attorney
Elizabeth McAlister
Mr
Shannon
Mr
Mark
Randal
238600
2014
Price
Minter
Legal
William Mosier
Richard
Ms
Genevieve
Mr
Nicholas
Mr
Abram John
Munn
O Donnell
Pafford
Director
Attorney
Nadeau
M
here
Attorney
the
php
form to
Bower
Marek
Mr
completed
info
Borelli
W
Professor
Mr
the
download
calendar
Babione
Boccuzzi
Mary
Carla
gov
be electronically
Mr
Mr
April 9
AW
will
Daniel
servlet
jspcaseId
for your case
calendar
uscourts
Mr
Laura
cmecf
09 00 A M
Courtroom
San
http
www
ca9
uscourts
gov
calendar
12 17668
reviewed
www
Appellate
Notice
gov
CA
form http
via
uscourts
Francisco
View
ca9
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
view
SAN
Forms
OF HEARING
complete
FRANCISCO Office
the
NOTICE
form
and
file
it
Ms
Sarah E Piepmeier
Staci
Pratt
Peter
Renn
Legal
Attorney
Mr
Jerome Cary Roth
Ms
Dawn
Paul
March
Smith
Trent
Monte
Attorney
Snider
Chief
Counsel
Tsai
Attorney
Stewart
Christina Swarns
Craig
Taylor
Mr
Rocky
Chiu
Mr
Robert
Mr
Joseph Leo
Mr
Lynn
feng
Tyler
Ward
Dennis
Attorney
Jr
Wardle
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Attorney
Sestito
Kevin
Ms
Attorney
Director
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
Deputy
District
Attorney
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
Senior
Attorney
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
3 11 2014 4 05 11
Subject
Re 12 17668
Sheila
PM
Beverly Sevcik
et al
Brian Sandoval
et al
NOTICE
Oral Argument
Schedule
Attached
Thank
you
Sheila
s leave
Let
the
dates
as they
are
Lake
James H
Lake
Law
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
law
Guardian
Mar 11
I
don
works
of
And
wrong
com
Civil
2014
at
Justice
4 02 PM
see anything
you a time that

shouldn
97205
227
Potter
in there
you could
Sheila
that
ask for
if
sheila
d read
potter
doj state
as an invitation
you moved
to
reset
or us
from the
argument
decide
we
wrote
court
She
m suggesting
s giving
that
you
t
we
can
agree
He
won
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
all
like
we
want
The
any appearance
court
of
still
gets
us forgetting
to
that
if
re collectively
right or
you know
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Mar 11
works
2014
com
of
at
Justice
3 57 PM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
Sheila
The
clerk
simply noted
that
there
is
time on the
docket
No
one
is
asking
the
court
at
this
point
Sheila
to
make
pushing
While
is
really welcome
anyone
the
judge
Charlene
inviting
the
involved
despite
has noted
us to
fill
your sense of
concerned
it
the
that
fact
that
it
that
there
is
this and
will
do not
everyone
in the
an opening
or simply letting
us know
dates
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Portland
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
law
Guardian
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
Justice
www
law
works
want
play badly
com
it
to
push
something
or otherwise
room
is
so that
appears
not
if
clear
we
appear
to
to
want
that
that
is
we
going
are
agree
me whether
we
can
the
ask to
court
move
On
Mar 11
sheila
I
haven
2 30
I
2014
potter
t
the
would
at
3 45 PM
doj state
seen
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
responses
time that
to
Charlene
really rather
not
this e mail
provided
cut
it
The
that
doj state
believe
timing
close
that
would
Are all
or us
wrote
am free
on Monday
be a real scramble
plaintiffs
counsel
afternoon
for us
united
at
though
and
in asking
for
the
judge
to
unhappily
to
this
I
have
push
the
to
tell
you
Lake
up oral argument
perceived
think
that
push
this will
no one
We
will
have
to
give
the
not
ll
check
allow
defendants
ll
let
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
to
Lea
Misha Isaak
Ann
the
Re
freeing
If
9th
is
10
Tom
like
at
out
to
the
amicus
already
of
the
us that
schedule
but
or how
having
are filed
is
worked
to
I
take
know
that
time he will
This
would
through
and
his time to
you don
much
It
one
he wants
briefs
would
almost
a draft
opinion
with
do
for the
you may represent
to
time you provided
the
court
that
time
but
you may not
idea
and
lake
push
a careful
told
s schedule
law
to
it
no replies
s a bad
mailto
2014
judge
through
argument
then
it
law
works
think
it
that
the
represent
will
and
if
they
state
that
we
join the
backfire
com
12 43 PM
Johnson
12 17668
circuit
Sevcik
rules before
a jury trial
court
Jennifer
Beverly
Middleton
et
al v
Potter
Brian
Sheila
Sandoval
Katharine
et
al
VON TER
NOTICE
STEGGE
Oral
Attached
up time on the
the
think
the
idea
really reacted
he s already
you anticipate
know
He
as he framed
you re cutting
yet
t
than
when
be a good
on him
and
think
would
Easton
Argument Schedule
There
March
Cc
If
counsel
are available
it
What
to
go into
it
rather
from whatever
judges often
James Perriguey
To
Subject
and
that
with him
you don
a week
you know
lawyers
motion or agree
badly
right
And
him to
with my co
it
think
impose our timing
our response
arguments
less than
as federal
do it
get
filed
to
decision
play very
a reply
the
judge
his clerk
I
want
digest
certainly
can
haven
do not
try
for a quick

prepare
or to
were
before
court
to
open
McShane
judge
it
McShane
could
the
moot
week
of
our case
the
April 7th
that
may settle
s docket
dates
for us
could
we
www
works
com
all
be available
during
that
week
for oral
argument
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
law
Guardian
Mar 10
LEaston
Notice
the
If
works
of
com http
Civil
2014
at
This
12 25 PM
communication
materials
distribution
and
of
the
Lea
com mailto
information
you are not
law
Justice
dorsayindianlaw
confidential
law
97205
227
Ann
including
intended
intended
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
for a specific
recipient
any attachments
and
this communication
com
may contain
individual
and
you should delete
are hereby
or the
notified
taking
of
wrote
privileged
purpose
and
or
is
protected
this communication
that
any disclosure
any action
based
and
copying
on it
is
by
or shred
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
be used
promoting
herein
comply
with IRS
for the
purpose
marketing
regulations
including
of
we
avoiding
or recommending
inform you that
any attachments
to
penalties
another
party
is
under
any U S
not
the
federal
intended
to
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
Ninth
Lea
is
set in Sevcik
Nevada
case
for April 9th
at
9 am
Ann
From
ca9
ecfnoticing
ca9
uscourts
gov
mailto
ca9
ecfnoticing
ca9
uscourts
gov
Sent
To
Monday
Lea
Ann
Subject
Schedule
March
10
ca9
ecfnoticing
ca9
uscourts
al
NOTICE
gov
12 23 PM
Easton
12 17668
Beverly
Sevcik
et
al v
Brian
Sandoval
et
Oral Argument
Attached
NOTE
TO PUBLIC
attorneys of
electronic
ACCESS
record
copy
of
and
all
by the
filer
a copy
of
United
States
Court of
Notice
of
following
Judicial
documents
download
PACER
each
Docket
USERS
parties in a case
directed
The
2014
mailto
filed
access
document
fees
apply
to
for the
Ninth
if
all
this first
of
the
United
States
pro se litigants
electronically
during
Appeals
Conference
including
receipt
other
is
users
to
policy
receive
permits
one
required by law
To
avoid
free
or
later charges
viewing
Circuit
Activity
transaction
was
entered
on 03 10 2014
at
12 22 33 PM
PDT
and
filed
on
03 10 2014
Case Name
Beverly
Sevcik
et
al v
Brian
Sandoval
et
al
Case Number
https
12 17668
TransportRoom
Docket
Text
Notice
of
Francisco
View
view
the

caseno
you have
9008892
ca9
the
ECF or return
mailed to
Chris Albright
Jeffords
Carmine D
Lisa Bonauto
Tara
Jr
Attorney
Borelli
W
Bower
Professor
W
Gerard
Dean
Robert
Broyles
Bute
Holly
Carmichael
Matthew
Vincent
Bradley
Brill
Marek
Joseph Christian
Chief
David
Codell
Cristol
Attorney
Jon Davidson
Elizabeth L
Kelly Harrison
Deeley
Dove
Counsel
Attorney
Christofferson
Melanie
Miss
Attorney
Babione
Boccuzzi
Mary
Mr
download
calendar
be electronically
Byron
Mr
gov
completed
David
Carla
April 9
AW
will
Daniel
servlet
jspcaseId
the
Mr
Mr
cmecf
for your case
calendar
uscourts
Mr
Laura
gov
238600
2014
09 00 A M
Courtroom
San
here
http
www
ca9
uscourts
gov
calendar
12 17668
reviewed
www
Appellate
Notice
uscourts
form http
via
ca9
CA
php
When
ecf
Attorney
info
the
php
form to
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
view
SAN
Forms
OF HEARING
complete
FRANCISCO Office
the
NOTICE
form
and
file
it
William C
Mr
Duncan
Alexander
Doctor
John
Mr
Stephen
Mr
Thomas
Suzanne
Mr
Kent
Ehat
Molnar
Attorney
Fisher
Howle
Solicitor General
Kaba
Kaplan
Katherine
Raghav
Deputy
Ann
District
Keating
Krishnapriyan
Charles S
Mary
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
LiMandri
Attorney
Elizabeth McAlister
Mr
Shannon
Mr
Mark
Randal
Price
Minter
Richard
Director
Attorney
Munn
Genevieve
Mr
Nicholas
Mr
Abram John
Ms
Sarah E Piepmeier
Nadeau
M
Staci
Pratt
Peter
Renn
O Donnell
Pafford
Legal
Attorney
Attorney
Director
Attorney
Mr
Jerome Cary Roth
Ms
Dawn
Paul
Legal
William Mosier
Ms
Attorney
Sestito
March
Smith
Kevin
Trent
Monte
Ms
Solicitor General
Goldberg
Herbert
Mr
Attorney
Eastman
Charles Wayne
Moez
Ms
Dushku
Attorney
Snider
Chief
Counsel
Tsai
Attorney
Stewart
Christina Swarns
Craig
Taylor
Mr
Rocky
Chiu
Mr
Robert
Mr
Joseph Leo
Mr
Lynn
feng
Tyler
Ward
Dennis
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
Senior
Deputy
District
Attorney
Attorney
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
Jr
Wardle
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Attorney
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
3 11 2014 4 11 52
Subject
Re 12 17668
Sheila
PM
Beverly Sevcik
et al
Brian Sandoval
et al
NOTICE
Oral Argument
Schedule
Attached
Thanks
Lake
Sheila
On
Mar 11
Thank
2014
you
4 05 PM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com
wrote
Sheila
s leave
Let
at
the
dates
as they
are
Lake
James H
Lake
Law
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
I
law
Guardian
Mar 11
don
works
of
com
Civil
2014
at
Justice
4 02 PM
see anything
you a time that

shouldn
97205
227
Potter
in there
you could
that
ask for
Sheila
I
if
d read
sheila
potter
doj state
as an invitation
you moved
to
reset
from the
argument
or us
wrote
court
She
m suggesting
s giving
that
you
And
we
or wrong
can
agree
He
won
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief
all
like
we
want
The
court
any appearance
of
still
gets
to
us forgetting
decide
that
if
we
re collectively
right
you know
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
works
Department
Mar 11
com
2014
of
at
Justice
3 57 PM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
Sheila
The
clerk
simply noted
that
there
is
time on the
docket
No
one
is
asking
the
court
at
this
point
Sheila
to
make
pushing
the
While
is
the
really welcome
anyone
involved
judge
despite
Charlene
inviting
fill
it
dates
Lake
Law
1906
James H
Works
SW
Portland
the
has noted
us to
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Oregon
your sense of
concerned
Street
97205
that
fact
that
it
that
there
is
this and
will
do not
play badly
everyone
in the
an opening
or simply letting
us know
it
want
to
push
something
or otherwise
room
is
so that
appears
not
if
clear
we
appear
that
that
to
agree
to
me whether
want
we
can
we
is
the
ask to
going
are
court
move
503
227
1928
503
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
Guardian
Mar 11
sheila
I
the
would
works
of
com http
Civil
2014
potter
haven
2 30
I
law
at
seen
to
Charlene
really rather
Potter
or us mailto
responses
time that
law
works
com
Justice
3 45 PM
doj state
www
not
Sheila
sheila
this e mail
provided
cut
it
H
potter
The
believe
timing
that
close
do not
think
doj state
that
would
Are all
or us
wrote
am free
on Monday
be a real scramble
plaintiffs
counsel
afternoon
for us
united
at
though
and
in asking
for
this
I
have
push
the
to
tell
you
up oral argument
perceived
think
that
push
no one
We
will
have
to
give
the
not
ll
defendants
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
to
Lea
Misha Isaak
Ann
the
There
Re
freeing
If
9th
is
10
Tom
the
argument
like
at
it
to
the
amicus
already
of
law
it
to
push
the
us that
schedule
no replies
but
or how
having
are filed
worked
through
one
is
to
to
and
to
I
take
his time to
you don
much
It
judge
he wants
t
know
that
time he will
briefs
the
unhappily
a careful
told
s schedule
This
would
would
almost
a draft
opinion
with
do
for the
you may represent
to
time you provided
the
court
that
time
but
you may not
s a bad
idea
and
mailto
2014
out
idea
really reacted
as he framed
judge
through
He
he s already
you anticipate
know
think
then
lake
law
works
think
it
that
represent
will
the
and
if
they
state
that
we
join the
backfire
com
12 43 PM
Johnson
12 17668
circuit
Sevcik
rules before
a jury trial
court
Jennifer
Beverly
Middleton
et
al v
Potter
Brian
Sheila
Sandoval
H
et
Katharine
al
VON TER
NOTICE
STEGGE
Oral
Attached
up time on the
the
think
than
you re cutting
yet
be a good
on him
Easton
Argument Schedule
If
would
and
are available
it
March
Cc
Subject
counsel
James Perriguey
To
to
go into
it
when
from whatever
judges often
you know
lawyers
motion or agree
What
you don
and
rather
with him
right
And
him to
let
badly
a week
with my co
ll
it
that
impose our timing
our response
arguments
less than
allow
check
get
filed
to
decision
play very
as federal
do it
try
a reply
the
judge
his clerk
I
want
digest
certainly
can
haven
or to
for a quick
this will

prepare
Lake
were
before
court
to
open
McShane
judge
it
McShane
could
the
moot
week
of
our case
the
April 7th
that
may settle
s docket
dates
for us
could
we
all
www
works
com
be available
during
that
week
for oral
argument
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
227
1928
334
2340
www
skype
lagojaime
On
Mar 10
97205
works
of
2014
com http
Civil
at
Notice
This
you are not
materials
distribution
and
the
Lea
com mailto
communication
information
law
Justice
12 25 PM
dorsayindianlaw
confidential
If
law
Guardian
LEaston
the
Street
Oregon
http
OTLA
law
Perriguey
LLC
Ann
including
intended
intended
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
for a specific
recipient
any attachments
and
of
this communication
To
comply
notified
taking
of
wrote
may contain
individual
and
you should delete
are hereby
or the
com
privileged
purpose
and
is
this communication
that
any disclosure
any action
based
on it
or
protected
and
copying
is
by
or shred
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
with IRS
regulations
we
inform you that
any U S
federal
tax advice
contained
cannot
ii
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
including
of
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
is
penalties
another
not
under
party
intended
the
to
Internal
any transaction
be used
Revenue
and
Code
or matter
or
addressed
herein
Ninth
Lea
is
set in Sevcik
Nevada
case
for April 9th
at
9 am
Ann
From
ca9
mailto
ca9
Sent
To
ecfnoticing
ecfnoticing
Monday
Lea
Ann
Subject
Schedule
March
10
uscourts
uscourts
2014
gov
mailto
ca9
ecfnoticing
ca9
uscourts
al
NOTICE
gov
gov
12 23 PM
Easton
12 17668
Beverly
Sevcik
et
al v
Brian
Sandoval
et
Oral Argument
Attached
NOTE
TO PUBLIC
attorneys of
electronic
record
copy
of
ACCESS
and
all
directed
by the
filer
download
a copy
of
United
States
Notice
of
The
ca9
ca9
documents
PACER
each
following
Judicial
filed
access
document
Court of
Docket
USERS
parties in a case
fees
apply
to
for the
Ninth
if
all
this first
of
the
United
States
pro se litigants
electronically
during
Appeals
Conference
including
receipt
other
is
users
to
policy
receive
permits
one
required by law
To
avoid
free
or
later charges
viewing
Circuit
Activity
transaction
was
entered
on 03 10 2014
at
12 22 33 PM
PDT
and
filed
on
03 10 2014
Case Name
Beverly
Sevcik
et
al v
Brian
Sandoval
et
al
Case Number
https
12 17668
TransportRoom
Docket
Text
Notice
of
Francisco
View
view
the
www
reviewed
ca9
the
uscourts
Appellate
ECF or return
9008892
AW
Notice
will
cmecf
servlet
jspcaseId
April 9
David
Chris Albright
Mr
Byron
Jeffords
Carmine D
for your case
calendar
gov
the
Boccuzzi
Mary
Lisa Bonauto
Tara
download
calendar
completed
be electronically
Mr
mailed to
Attorney
Babione
Jr
Attorney
Borelli
Daniel
Bower
Professor
Mr
gov
238600
2014
09 00 A M
Courtroom
San
Dean
Gerard
Vincent
Bradley
Brill
Robert
Marek
Bute
Holly
Carmichael
Matthew
here
http
www
ca9
uscourts
gov
calendar
12 17668
you have
Laura
uscourts
caseno
form http
via
ca9
CA
php
When
ecf
Broyles
Joseph Christian
Chief
Counsel
Attorney
info
the
php
form to
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
view
SAN
Forms
OF HEARING
complete
FRANCISCO Office
the
NOTICE
form
and
file
it
Carla
Mr
Christofferson
David
Melanie
Mr
Codell
Cristol
Miss
Elizabeth L
Kelly Harrison
William C
Mr
John
Mr
Stephen
Mr
Thomas
Suzanne
Attorney
Eastman
Kent
Ehat
Molnar
Attorney
Fisher
Howle
Kaplan
Katherine
Deputy
Ann
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
LiMandri
Attorney
Elizabeth McAlister
Mr
Shannon
Mr
Mark
Randal
Price
Minter
Richard
Director
Attorney
Munn
Genevieve
Mr
Nicholas
Mr
Abram John
Ms
Sarah E Piepmeier
Nadeau
M
Staci
Pratt
Peter
Renn
O Donnell
Pafford
Legal
Attorney
Attorney
Director
Attorney
Mr
Jerome Cary Roth
Ms
Dawn
Paul
Legal
William Mosier
Ms
Attorney
Sestito
March
Smith
Kevin
Trent
Monte
Attorney
Snider
Chief
Counsel
Tsai
Attorney
Stewart
Christina Swarns
Craig
Taylor
Mr
Rocky
Chiu
Mr
Robert
Mr
Joseph Leo
Mr
Lynn
feng
Tyler
Ward
Dennis
Attorney
Jr
Wardle
CONFIDENTIALITY
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
Senior
Deputy
District
Attorney
Attorney
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
District
Keating
Krishnapriyan
Charles S
Mary
This
Solicitor General
Kaba
Raghav
Ms
Solicitor General
Goldberg
Herbert
Mr
Attorney
Dushku
Charles Wayne
Moez
Ms
Deeley
Dove
Duncan
Alexander
Doctor
Mr
Attorney
Jon Davidson
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
3 11 2014 4 48 24
Subject
Re
Sheila
H
PM
Yup
Lea Ann
On Mar
11
2014
2 34
at
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
sigh
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Trial
Begin forwarded
From Lake
To
message
Perriguey
March 11 2014
Date
Potter
Sheila
STEGGE
Justice
Geiger
Are you
free
at
2 14 19
sheila
potter
multco us
katevts
Subject
law works com
lake
mailto lake
law works com
PM PDT
doj state or us
doj state or us
Katharine
multco us
mailto katevts
Oral argument
on the 7th for oral argument
See below
From
ord uscourts gov
March 11 2014
Date
To
Pew
Charlene
Lake Perriguey
Re
Subject
at
1 46 22
Kitzhaber
Judge McShane has Monday

data
detectors
2014
me know
mailto lake
Case
works for counsel
of Oregon
431 4105
Lake James
tel
541
20431 4105
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Street
Oregon 97205
x apple data detectors

x apple data
detectors
503
227 1928
tel
503
20227 1928
503
334 2340
tel
503
20334 2340
http
www
law works com
http
www
law works com
MC
6 13 cv 01834
Clerk
District
ord uscourts gov
that
if
No
States District Court
United
541
et al
Pew
Charlene
Deputy
April 7
Please let
Pew
PM PDT
law works com
lake
Geiger et al
mailto Charlene
0 0
0 0
law works com
available
at
2 30
pm
x apple
VON TER
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Lake James
Civil
Justice
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Street
Oregon 97205
x apple data
503
227 1928
tel
503
503
334 2340
tel
503
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
may
20334 2340
http
www
law works com
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
0 0
20227 1928
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
detectors
0 0
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
3 11 2014 6 43 07
Subject
Rummell Case
Got your voicemails
Sorry
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Thomas
Sheila
Perkins Coie
Jr
ve been
PM
in Florida
on another matter
We
are
totally
on the same page
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
IRS CIRCULAR
perkinscoie
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Johnson
Sent
3 11 2014 8 06 56
Subject
Re Rummell Case
You
know
Doug
Pahl
rather
and
sensation
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Thomas
suspected
were
about
Sheila
the
we
R Jr
PM
Perkins Coie
might be
just talking
about
what
a good
egg
you are
in case
you noticed
a warming
ears
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Mar 11
2014
TRJohnson
of
at
Justice
6 43 PM
perkinscoie
Got your voicemails
Johnson
com mailto
Sorry
ve
Thomas
TRJohnson
been
Jr
Perkins
perkinscoie
com
Coie
wrote
in Florida on another
matter
We
are totally
on the
same
page
Thomas
1120
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
IRS
97209
727
914
346
LLP
8918
CIRCULAR
contained
Perkins
4128
2176
2176
230
regulations
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
cannot
in error
any attachments
to
may contain
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
com
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
com mailto
avoiding
have
Coie
Floor
Portland
FAX
Perkins
Street
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
To
Sent
3 11 2014
Subject
RE
don
know
pushing
the
if
conference
From
Katharine
Tuesday
Lake
Cc
Potter
decide
like
we
VON TER
March
up with you
the
case
re going
STEGGE
11
2014
NOW
to
I
NOW
keep
mailto
told
NOW
things
katevts
that
have
after
serious reservations
his remarks
at
the
about
Rule
16
on as scheduled
multco us
2 15 PM
Sheila
Re
Geiger
Ter
Stegge
Oral argument
am free
Kate
von
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
On
Mar 11
com
Suite
988
500
Portland
OR
County
katevts
co
2014
2 14 PM
on the
Charlene
Date
March
Lake
7th
Judge
Pew
11
97214

Lake
Perriguey
lake
Re
at
lake
Geiger et
McShane
gov
1 46 22 PM
law
al
works
has Monday
mailto
Charlene
com mailto
Kitzhaber
April 7
et
lake
al
Deputy
Clerk
United
States
District
541
of
431
District
2014available
James H
Lake
Works
1906
SW
Court
Oregon
4105
tel
541
20431
4105
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Portland
Street
Oregon
97205
503
227
1928
tel
503
20227
1928
503
334
2340
tel
503
20334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
Law
1906
law
works
com http
Guardian
of
James H
Perriguey
Works
SW
Portland
503
Civil
www
law
Justice
LLC
Madison
Street
Oregon
227
1928
97205
tel
503
20227
Pew
1928
works
law
Case No
Pew
Charlene
Lake
works
com mailto
lake
law
ord uscourts
gov
PDT
for counsel
OTLA
law
multco us
for oral argument
ord uscourts
2014
Perriguey
Subject
Law
Attorney
fax
3377
at
Multnomah
below
From
To
Attorney
wrote
Are you free

See
County
503
mailto
Tue
works
Lake
especially
Perriguey
Subject
I
followed
to
Sounds
Sent
To
Lake
judge
H
VON TER STEGGE
9 31 31 PM
Sheila
Katharine
com
at
works
com
6 13 cv
2 30 pm
01834
Please
let
MC
me know
if
that
works
503
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
law
Guardian
tel
works
of
503
20334
com http
Civil
Justice
2340
www
law
works
com
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
3 12 2014 4 37 09
Subject
RE
Well
my
AM
Rummell Case
From
Android phone
Potter Sheila
Received
Thomas
Johnson
Re Rummell Case
You know
Doug
and
nitrodesk
com
we might
rather suspected
were
talking
just
doj state or us
8 07PM
Perkins
Jr
Subject
Deputy
www
TouchDown
sheila potter
11 Mar 2014
Tuesday
Pahl
using
Message
Original
Sheila
Perkins Coie
Jr
you and Doug then takes a couple to know one
if
Sent from
To
Thomas
Sheila
TRJohnson
Coie
perkinscoie
com
be
what
about
good egg you are
in case
you noticed
a warming sensation about the ears
Potter
Chief
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On Mar
11
2014
TRJohnson
at
Got your voicemails
Thomas
1120
6 43
PM
Johnson
Johnson
Thomas
mailto
TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
Sorry
Perkins
ve
Jr
Perkins
been in Florida on another
Coie
com
perkinscoie
matter
wrote
We
are
totally
on
the
same page
Coie LLP
Couch Street
Tenth Floor
OR 97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2176
CELL 503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL trjohnson perkinscoie
Portland
IRS
CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE
expressly indicated
Perkins
com
Coie LLP
otherwise
to
be used
mailto trjohnson
with Treasury
in
under the Internal Revenue Code or
ii
promoting
com
perkinscoie
marketing or
this
for
Department and IRS
communicationincluding
the purpose
recommending
of
i
to
avoiding penalties
party
another
we
regulations
inform
any attachments
that
any transaction
is
may
be
you that unless
not intended
or written
or matter addressed
herein
or
any attachments
NOTICE
This
communication may contain
privileged or other confidential
information
If
by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
sender
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
the addressee or
e mail
contain
it
it
in error
please advise the
Thank
you
NOTICE
information
appears
you have received
without
copying
that
is
from the context
privileged
or otherwise
confidential
that
or otherwise
you have received
exempt
this
e
and immediately delete the message and any
from disclosure
mail in error
attachments
under applicable
please advise
from your system
me
by
imposed on the taxpayer
law
If
you are not
immediately
by reply
VON TER STEGGE

MADKOUR Lea Ann Easton
2014 12 21 29 PM
From
Katharine
To
Jenny
Sent
3 13
Subject
interesting
just
phone
call
me some
She never
search
off
explicitly
brief
when
Is this
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
believe
is
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
associated
with J erry Falwell s Liberty University
but I think she
was
try
ans wered herself with a google

ing to figure out
if
the County
a rational basis argument in support of the marriage ban
the best they ve got
County Attorney
97214
craft
explained the County s
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
which
stated her purpose for calling
the phone very quickly
group preparing an amicus
501
Sheila
very basic questions about the case status that she could have
would be receptive to allowing them to help us
She got
Potter
on Geiger Rummell
spoke with a lawyer from Liberty Counsel
She asked
Lake Perriguey
MSJ
response
Do any
of you
know
of a pro ban
From
Potter
To
Sent
3 13 2014
Subject
RE
This
is
the
first
interesting
ve
heard
From
Katharine
VON TER
Sent
Thursday
March
To
Jenny MADKOUR
Subject
I
just spoke
Falwell
that
purpose
to
got
off
know
of
Kate
von
them
the
Ter
help
phone
a pro ban
Lea Ann Easton
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
mailto
County
Suite
mailto
call
on Geiger Rummell
katevts
multco us
Lake
Perriguey
Potter
Sheila
on Geiger Rummell
from Liberty Counsel

She
asked
me some
which
very
herself with a google
think
she was
quickly
preparing
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Lake Perriguey
12 21 PM
us craft
very
group
MADKOUR
trying
a rational
when
to
basis
explained
an amicus
brief
believe
basic
search
associated
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
She
explicitly
argument
never
if
the
County
s MSJ
best
the
County
in support
Is this the
of
case
the
97214
fax
multco us
ve
status
stated
would
her
be receptive
marriage ban
response
they
Attorney
with Jerry
about
figure out
the
is
questions
Stegge
Senior
katevts
to
but
call
Jenny
one
Easton
answered
for calling
allowing
She
Ann
phone
with a lawyer
have
of
2014
s Liberty University
she could
phone
STEGGE
13
Lea
interesting
H
VON TER STEGGE
12 24 19 PM
Sheila
Katharine
got
Do
any of
you
From
To
Katharine
CC
Jenny
Sent
3 13
Subject
Re
Hi Kate
interesting
call
Sheila
on Geiger Rummell
did hear that the Oregon Family Council
of the limitations on standing to appeal

If
phone
Potter
et al
have not heard anything
VON TER STEGGE

MADKOUR Lea Ann Easton
2014 12 36 56 PM
so elected not to waste
she wanted to help craft a rational basis argument
their
discussed
inter
vening in the suit but
was aware
resources
she has not googled
SmithKline
either
Thank you for the info
LJP
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Mar
just
13 2014
Civil
at
Justice
PM
12 21
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
spoke with a lawyer from Liberty Counsel
me some
She asked
She never
search
off
explicitly
stated her purpose for calling
the phone very quickly
group preparing an amicus
brief
when
Is this
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
believe
is
associated
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
was
wrote
with J erry Falwell s Liberty University
try
ans wered herself with a google

ing to figure out
if
the County
a rational basis argument in support of the marriage ban
explained the County s
County Attorney
97214
craft
but I think she
the best they ve got
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
multco us
very basic questions about the case status that she could have
would be receptive to allowing them to help us
She got
which
katevts
MSJ
response
Do any
of you
know
of a pro ban
From
Charlene
To
lake
Pew
ord uscourts gov
law works
KJHolm
Potter
com
perkinscoie
Sheila
katevts
Sent
3 13 2014 4 54 14
Subject
6 13 cv 01834
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com jmiddleton
com TRJohnson
jjlslaw
com
perkinscoie
kdiaz
com
aclu
or
org
Joyce Anna
multco us
PM
MC Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber et al
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to
contact the parties to see
Motions in this case

notify
If
you do
the court either way
United States
541
Thank you
Pew
Courtroom Deputy to Judge Michael J
District of
the court
District
Oregon
431 4105
Court
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
have Oral Argument on the
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jennifer
CC
lake
Middleton
law works
Potter
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
katevts
multco us
Sent
3 13 2014 9 22 56
Subject
Re 6 13
Sheila
jmiddleton
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
jjlslaw
com TRJohnson
com
kdiaz
perkinscoie
KJHolm
aclu or org
com
Joyce Anna
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
com
PM
cv 01834
MC
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Folks
would
like
to have a conference
but could likely squeeze
in
call
to discuss this question from the Court
a call around 2
pm Or I am
available
am
day on Monday
all
a meeting
in
I
all
believe Lake
day on Friday
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane
your permission on behalf of your

question and will report back
clients
to the court
to advise
next
the court clerk that the parties are discussing
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
Thank you
Pew
District of
the court
District
Oregon
431 4105
Court
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
From
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Jennifer
org
or
Middleton
KJHolm
Sent
3 13 2014 9 43 32
Subject
Re 6 13
On
Sheila
com
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Tom
Misha Isaak
Johnson
Jennifer
Joyce
Middleton
kdiaz
aclu
Anna
PM
cv 01834
Friday I will not be available until
Lake James
Potter
perkinscoie
MC
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
about 3 30
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Mar
13 2014
Civil
at
Justice
9 22
PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Folks
would
like
in
call
a call around 2
pm Or I am
available
am
day on Monday
all
a meeting
in
I
all
believe Lake
day on Friday
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
Thank you
Pew
District of
the court
District
Oregon
431 4105
Court
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
lake
law works
MIsaak
Jennifer
com
Sent
3 13 2014 11 35 42
PM
Subject
RE
MC
couldn
knows
do a call
anticipate
From
Lea
Sent
Thursday
Ann
on Friday
that
Easton
we
mailto
March
13
will
Middleton
Potter
lake
works
com
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com
TRJohnson
katevts
KJHolm
Joyce Anna
perkinscoie
com
multco us
katevts
Kitzhaber et al
but
dorsayindianlaw
Jennifer
perkinscoie
aclu or org
com
could
on Monday
So that
everyone
com
9 23 PM
Cc
MIsaak
kdiaz
perkinscoie
be in court
To
law
com
ask for oral argument
LEaston
2014
Geiger et al v
ll
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
jjlslaw
com TRJohnson
perkinscoie
6 13 cv 01834
Middleton
jmiddleton
Sheila
Katharine
com
perkinscoie
VON TER
kdiaz
com
aclu
Joyce
STEGGE
or org
Anna
KJHolm perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
com
multco us
Subject
Re
6 13 cv
01834
MC
Geiger et
to
a conference
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
Folks
I
would
like
meeting
all
all
have
day on Friday but
day on Monday
Also
the
would
like
believe
call
could
Lake
is
your permission
parties are discussing
Judge
to
discuss
likely
available
on behalf
McShane
this question
squeeze
in a call
from the
around
Court
2 pm
Or I
am in a
am available
as well
of
your clients
s question
and
will
to
advise
report
the
back
court
to
the
clerk
court
that
next
week
Lea
On
Ann
Mar 13
2014
at
4 54 PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge
McShane
asked
Argument on the
to
accommodate
way
Thank
Charlene
Courtroom
United
541
431
contact
the
parties
if
the
parties to
Motions
you don
that
Pew
Deputy
of
to
Oregon
4105
Judge
District
Michael
Court
see if
in this case
you
States
District
me to
Summary Judgment
McShane
is
fine
they
If
also
were
you do
Please
still
the
wanting
court
notify
is
the
to
more
court
have
Oral
than happy
either
VON TER STEGGE

H
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
Jennifer
KJHolm
org
or
Middleton
perkinscoie
com
lake
law works
MIsaak
com jmiddleton jjlslaw com kdiaz aclu

com TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com Joyce
perkinscoie
Anna
Sent
3 14 2014 9 05 15
Subject
Re 6 13
can
talk
this
afternoon
AM
MC
cv 01834
my Monday
but
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Lea Ann
looks good
s fine
it
with
me
if
you
let
the court
know we
are
discussing this in a call and will report back
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
503 988 3377
couldn
that
we
From
Sent
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Thu Mar
500
13
do
2014
call
at
11 35
on Friday
will ask for oral
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jennifer
Cc
lake
Potter
ll
be
Sheila
in court
sheila
potter
but could on
doj state or us
Monday
So
wrote
that everyone
knows
anticipate
argument
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 23 PM
March 13
Thursday
PM
Potter Sheila H Katharine VON TER STEGGE

com jmiddleton jjlslaw com kdiaz aclu or org KJHolm
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
Joyce Anna Potter Sheila H katevts
multco us
Subject Re 6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger et al v Kitzhaber et al
Middleton
law works
com
perkinscoie
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Folks
would
like
in
call
a call around 2
pm Or I am
available
all
am
day on Monday
a meeting
in
I
all
believe Lake
day on Friday
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
Thank you
Pew
District of
the court
District
McShane
Court
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
lake
law works
Isaak
Misha
Thomas
com
Perkins
3 14 2014 10 18 32
AM
RE
MC
If
m pretty
free
on Monday
any defendant
the hearing
how
come
they
Lea Ann
to have the hearing
although
for
have no issue with you
why
understand
definitely
out
Geiger et al v
Middleton
com
Perkins
Coie
Kitzhaber et al
would
we
Kristina
multco us
ll
on a
get
think the court is going
the court that
telling
Holm
aclu or org
to
like
call
go
to get this
are talking
preferably
about
with
forward
an open
the state might want to have
of reasons people
lot
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
kdiaz
katevts
so Lea Ann set something and
to talk
inclined
is
can
jjlslaw
Joyce Anna
Coie
Subject
6 13 cv 01834
Jennifer
jmiddleton
Sent
Perkins Coie
Jr
Lea Ann Easton
hearing
resolved
this
and
after
in light
it
on
this
8 30
kid drop off at

of his
comments
to the extent
as early as possible
we
that
will
contact
the court early
week
next
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
Johnson
Subject
couldn
we
From
Sent
mailto sheila
Middleton
jmiddleton
Jr
do
call
Perkins
on Friday
will ask for oral
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jennifer
Cc
lake
ll
com
al
be
aclu or
Joyce Anna
Coie
et
VON TER STEGGE

kdiaz
Kitzhaber
in court
et
Holm
org
katevts
multco
Perkins Coie
Kristina J
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
us
al
but could on
Monday
So
that everyone
knows
anticipate
argument
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 23 PM
March 13
Thursday
Katharine
jjlslaw
RE 6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 36 PM
Jennifer
com
Thomas R
law works
lake
that
com
March 13
Thursday
Coie
perkinscoie

TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
multco us
Middleton
law works
com
perkinscoie
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Folks
would
like
in
call
a call around 2
pm Or I am
available
all
am
day on Monday
a meeting
in
I
all
believe Lake
day on Friday
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
at
that is
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
Please
also
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
District
if
they were
wanting
still
more than happy
to
to
Summary
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
that
is
fine
Thank you
McShane
Court
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
NOTICE
me
230 DISCLOSURE
party
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
that
is
Pew
District of
the court
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
3 14 2014 10 27 15
AM
Subject
FW
MC Geiger et
will
6 13 cv 01834
to put this in your lap
trying
be people on my end who
that because
My
especially
on
chance
be heard whatever
to
Anyway
stay issues
thanks Sheila
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
m happy
Perkins Coie
to dip
no
think that
anyone s guess
is
it
Jr
my
hearing
some ways
In
personal view is
as
al
Kitzhaber et al
toe in the water
means a
quicker
on
further
decision
be
hearing might
little
the call as is necessary
although
I think
court
Not
Thomas
Sheila
helpful to the
ve said that a hearing
in
is necessary in
it
is
all
There
tea leaf reading
rendering
on
decision
order to give opponents
they say
Have a
weekend
great
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Joyce Anna
m pretty
free
Jennifer
jmiddleton
multco
on Monday
jjlslaw
the hearing
can
come
they
Lea Ann
kdiaz
et
al
Kitzhaber
although
Katharine
aclu or
VON TER STEGGE
org
understand
for
et
Holm
Perkins Coie
Kristina J
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
al
to have the hearing
definitely
out
Middleton
com
us
to talk
inclined
is
Coie
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
com
katevts
any defendant
how
Jr
2014 10 19 AM
Subject
If
March 14
law works
lake
Coie
Thomas R
Johnson
Friday
com
perkinscoie
lot
why
ll
get
on a
to
of reasons people
telling
the court that
would
we
like
call
go
an open
to get this
are talking
preferably
about
with
forward
hearing
resolved
this
and
that
after
it
on
kid drop off at
in light
this
of his
8 30
comments
to the extent
that is
we
will
contact
the court early
week
next
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
From
Sent
To
trjohnson
Potter
perkinscoie
Sheila
com
mailto sheila
March 13
Thursday
potter
doj state or us
2014 11 36 PM
Jennifer Middleton
com jmiddleton jjlslaw com kdiaz aclu or org Holm Kristina
Coie
Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna katevts
multco us
Subject RE 6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger et al v Kitzhaber et al
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
lake
couldn
that
we
law works
do
call
on Friday
will ask for oral
ll
argument
be
in court
but could on
Monday
So
at
Perkins
Coie
that everyone
Isaak
knows
Misha
Perkins
anticipate
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
To
Jennifer
Cc
lake
mailto
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 23 PM
March 13
Thursday

TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
multco us
Middleton
law works
com
perkinscoie
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
Folks
would
like
in
call
pm Or I am
a call around 2
available
am
day on Monday
all
a meeting
in
I
day on Friday
all
believe Lake
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
Please
also
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
District
if
they were
wanting
still
more than happy
to
to
Summary
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
that
is
fine
Thank you
McShane
Court
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
NOTICE
me
230 DISCLOSURE
party
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
that
is
Pew
District of
the court
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Thomas
Johnson
R Jr
AM
Sent
3 14 2014 10 32 08
Subject
RE
MC
6 13 cv 01834
Perkins Coie
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Understood
From
Johnson
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Subject
Sheila
FW
Not trying
the
call
quicker
guess
to
to
Anyway
1120
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
Sheila
My
914
346
com
m happy
to
is
all
personal
to
Coie
view
is
al
dip my toe
on my end
tea
be heard
et
leaf
court
ve
whatever
that
on that
a little
that
further
no hearing
because
in rendering
said
they
water
think
reading
the
as I
in the
who
it
on
means a
is
anyone
a decision
a hearing
is
necessary
in
say
weekend
LLP
4128
2176
8918
2176
Johnson
Friday
Potter
lake
Thomas
March
Sheila
law
com mailto
Jr
14
2014
Lea
Perkins
Coie
Ann
Easton
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Holm
katevts
Kristina
Perkins
multco us mailto
Subject
RE
6 13 cv
m pretty free
after
kid
court
is
drop
going
understand
come
to
why
at
MC
to
state
although
works
Coie
If
Middleton
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
com
Isaak
com
kdiaz
Misha
aclu
Perkins
or org mailto
Coie
Joyce
kdiaz
aclu
Anna
multco us
Geiger et
talk
8 30
go forward
the
out
katevts
01834
on Monday
off
law
Jennifer
com mailto
or org
com
10 19 AM
works
they
perkinscoie
Street
97209
From
TRJohnson
Kitzhaber
be people
it
a great
Perkins
al v
might be helpful to
a chance
Have
will
think
a hearing
opponents
727
Sent
Cc
mailto
Floor
PHONE
To
There
although
Johnson
Portland
FAX
Coie
Geiger et
this in your lap
ways
Couch
Perkins
10 27 AM
MC
on stay issues
give
01834
necessary
some
N W
Tenth
put
thanks
Thomas
Jr
2014
decision
especially
14
6 13 cv
as is
In
order
Thomas
March
al v
so Lea
Kitzhaber
Ann
any defendant
with it
might want
for a lot
in light
to
of
have
al
set something
and
is
inclined
of
his comments
an open
reasons
et
people
to
hearing
would
ll
have
at
the
the
on this
like
to
get
get
on a call
hearing
hearing
to
the
I
I
preferably
think
can
extent
this resolved
the
definitely
that
is
how
as early
as possible
Lea
Ann
will
Thomas
1120
no issue
the
court
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
with you telling
early next
Perkins
Coie
the
court
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
we
are talking
about
this and
that
LLP
Street
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
Sheila
March
mailto
13
2014
sheila
potter
doj state
Lea
Ann
Easton
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Holm
Perkins
Kristina
Coie
Joyce
Middleton
Perkins
Anna
com
or us
11 36 PM
Cc
or org
Jennifer
com mailto
To
Jr
that
week
Floor
Portland
FAX
have
contact
law
Coie
katevts
Katharine
works
VON TER
STEGGE
com
Isaak
com
kdiaz
Misha
multco us mailto
aclu
or org mailto
Perkins
Coie
Johnson
katevts
multco us
kdiaz
aclu
Thomas
we
Subject
RE
couldn
knows
6 13 cv
01834
do a call
anticipate
From
Lea
Sent
Thursday
Ann
MC
Geiger et
on Friday
that
Easton
we
mailto
March
13
will
ll
Kitzhaber
be in court
dorsayindianlaw
Jennifer
Middleton
Cc
lake
works
com mailto
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org
KJHolm
MIsaak
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
katevts
Potter
perkinscoie
Re
law
MIsaak
com mailto
multco us mailto
Subject
Sheila
could
on Monday
So that
everyone
com
VON TER
STEGGE
com
com
kdiaz
KJHolm perkinscoie
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
katevts
MC
Katharine
works
com mailto
com mailto
perkinscoie
but
al
9 23 PM
To
law
et
LEaston
2014
al v
aclu
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
com
com
perkinscoie
com
Joyce
Anna
Potter
Sheila
multco us
6 13 cv
01834
Geiger et
to
a conference
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
Folks
I
would
like
meeting
all
all
have
day on Friday but
day on Monday
Also
the
would
like
believe
call
could
Lake
is
your permission
Judge
to
discuss
likely
available
on behalf
McShane
this question
squeeze
in a call
from the
around
Court
2 pm
Or I
am in a
am available
as well
of
your clients
s question
and
to
will
advise
report
the
back
court
to
the
clerk
court
that
next
week
Lea
On
Ann
Mar 13
2014
at
4 54 PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge
McShane
asked
Argument on the
to
accommodate
way
Thank
Courtroom
the
parties
Deputy
of
431
to
Judge
District
under
or otherwise
attachments
is
fine
still
also
the
Please
wanting
court
notify
is
the
to
have
more
Oral
than happy
court
either
McShane
NOTICE
information
the
law
If
received
contents
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
that
were
you do
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
contained
Michael
you have
keep
regulations
have
they
If
Court
applicable
that
reply e mail
Perkins
you don
see if
in this case
Oregon
e mail may contain
disclosure
IRS
parties to
4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
if
the
Motions
you
States
District
541
contact
Pew
Charlene
United
me to
Summary Judgment
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Thomas
Johnson
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
Jr
Jennifer
Middleton
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
CC
lake
law works
Isaak
Misha
com
jmiddleton
Perkins
Sent
3 14 2014 10 49 56
AM
Subject
RE
MC
My
Monday
We
want
is
open
a speedy resolution
interest
don
that
think
kdiaz
aclu or org
Holm
Kristina
Perkins
Coie
multco us
katevts
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
but
correctly
as well
significant
t
6 13 cv 01834
com
jjlslaw
Joyce Anna
Coie
we
as well
in an open
will
agree
and
to
as Tom
transparent
cancel
process
oral argument
anticipated
leading
to
on these
my clients
that
cases
also have
resolution
That
s not
and
to
foreclose
a conversation on Monday
uphill battle to persuade
just to let people know

the AG and the Governor
that that s where we re at

and it
ll
be an
and me
that this should be resolved
without
the
to
a hearing
open
important from the

From
Johnson
to
public
perspective
Thomas
of
Jr
the
Perkins
lake
Coie
law
works
Isaak
Subject
RE
com
Misha
6 13 cv
01834
Coie
MC
want
Joyce
Geiger et
slow
things
mailto
com
Anna
al v
TRJohnson
Middleton
Katharine
kdiaz
or org
aclu
katevts
Kitzhaber
et
court
with it
of
they
come
to
why
go forward
the
out
state
although
might want
for a lot
in light
to
of
is
really
have
his comments
an open
reasons
hearing
people
com
VON TER
Holm
STEGGE
Kristina
Perkins
al
set something and I

is inclined to have
going
process
multco us
talk
so Lea Ann
If any defendant
is
but
perkinscoie
I m pretty free on Monday to

after kid drop off at 8 30
understand
down
defendants
Jennifer
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Perkins
Coie
Sent
Friday
March 14
2014 10 19 AM
To
Potter Sheila H
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
don
state
would
at
ll
get on a call
preferably
the hearing
I think the
the
on this
like
to
hearing
to
get
the
can
extent
this resolved
definitely
that
is
how
as early
as possible
Lea
Ann
will
have
contact
R
Thomas
1120
Couch
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
503
E MAIL
court
Johnson
N W
PHONE
no issue
the
914
346
Perkins
Coie
the
court
that
we
Potter
Thursday
LLP
4128
Sheila
com mailto
mailto
March
13
sheila
2014
potter
doj state
Lea
Ann
Easton
Cc
lake
law
works
com mailto
Jennifer
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or us
Middleton
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
law
Katharine
works
VON TER
couldn
01834
do a call
anticipate
From
Lea
Sent
Thursday
Ann
MC
Geiger et
on Friday
that
Easton
March
we
mailto
13
will
ll
com
kdiaz
be in court
et
but
dorsayindianlaw
Jennifer
Middleton
Cc
lake
works
com mailto
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
perkinscoie
Sheila
com mailto
multco us mailto
kdiaz
aclu
Thomas
al
could
on Monday
So that
everyone
com
law
Katharine
works
VON TER
katevts
TRJohnson
multco us
STEGGE
com
com
kdiaz
or org
KJHolm perkinscoie
com mailto KJHolm perkinscoie
MIsaak perkinscoie
com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie
com
TRJohnson
or org mailto
Coie
Johnson
multco us
9 23 PM
To
law
Potter
Kitzhaber
aclu
Perkins
katevts
LEaston
2014
al v
STEGGE
com
or org
Holm
Kristina J
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Jr
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna
katevts multco us mailto
6 13 cv
com
11 36 PM
To
knows
that
8918
From
this and
2176
Sent
RE
about
2176
Subject
are talking
week
Street
97209
727
with you telling
early next
perkinscoie
com
aclu
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
com
Joyce
Anna
Potter
Sheila
we
Subject
Re
6 13 cv
01834
MC
Geiger et
to
a conference
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
Folks
I
would
like
meeting
all
all
have
day on Friday but
day on Monday
Also
the
would
like
believe
call
could
Lake
is
your permission
Judge
to
discuss
likely
available
on behalf
McShane
this question
squeeze
in a call
from the
around
Court
2 pm
Or I
am in a
am available
as well
of
your clients
s question
and
to
will
advise
report
the
back
court
to
the
clerk
court
that
next
week
Lea
On
Ann
Mar 13
2014
at
4 54 PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge
McShane
asked
Argument on the
to
accommodate
way
Thank
Courtroom
the
parties
Deputy
of
431
to
Judge
District
under
or otherwise
attachments
is
fine
still
also
the
Please
wanting
court
notify
is
the
to
have
more
Oral
than happy
court
either
McShane
NOTICE
information
the
law
If
received
contents
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
that
were
you do
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
contained
Michael
you have
keep
regulations
have
they
If
Court
applicable
that
reply e mail
Perkins
you don
see if
in this case
Oregon
e mail may contain
disclosure
IRS
parties to
4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
if
the
Motions
you
States
District
541
contact
Pew
Charlene
United
me to
Summary Judgment
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Charlene
CC
lake
Pew
ord uscourts gov
law works
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
katevts
multco us
jmiddleton
Sent
3 14 2014 11 05 52
AM
Subject
Re 6 13
MC
cv 01834
jjlslaw
com TRJohnson
Geiger et al v
com
kdiaz
aclu or org
com
perkinscoie
KJHolm
Joyce Anna
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
com
Kitzhaber et al
Ms Pew
have been authorized
McShane
by
all
Counsel for the
response on whether
of counsel in these cases to contact you
oral argument
is
to respond to
meet to discuss Judge McShane
parties will
necessary
next
your inquiry on behalf of Judge
question early next
week and have
week
Thank you and have a great weekend
Lea Ann Easton
Co
Counsel for Geiger
On Mar
13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
Thank you
Pew
District of
the court
District
Oregon
431 4105
Court
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
From
To
Potter
Sent
3 16 2014 2 17 55
Subject
Re 12 17668
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
PM
Beverly Sevcik
et al
Brian Sandoval
et al
NOTICE
Oral Argument
Schedule
Attached
Hi Sheila
In
advance
of
the
oral argument
invitation
together
While
proposed
date
have
from the
given
court
that
the
people
predicate
when
submitted
on 1 April
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
weighed
On
227
up the
this takes
exercise
if
longer
even
additional
date
Judge
think
three
your thoughts
from the
an additional
or that
the
wonder
note
oral argument
the
is
new
but
dismiss with it
layer of
weeks
to
part
of
Pew
an earlier
Ms
McShane
that
about
court
s rights
process
of
delay
the
if
s inquiry is
are infringed
I
doubt
process
the
an
all
case
is
is
that
there
a necessary
not
97205
1928
com
lagojaime
Guardian
Mar 11
I
the
Street
Oregon
F
503
334 2340
http
www law works
skype
move
for that
against
this week
the
Perriguey
Madison
503
OTLA
to
longer
watching
call
since
LLC
Portland
T
not
a 30 minute oral argument
are many
Lake
group
changed
don
of
2014
at
And
wrong
Justice
4 02 PM
see anything
you a time that

shouldn
Civil
Potter
in there
you could
Sheila
that
ask for
if
sheila
d read
potter
doj state
as an invitation
you moved
to
reset
or us
from the
argument
decide
we
wrote
court
She
m suggesting
s giving
that
you
t
we
can
agree
He
won
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
all
like
we
want
The
any appearance
court
of
still
gets
us forgetting
to
that
if
re collectively
right or
you know
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Mar 11
works
com
2014
of
at
Justice
3 57 PM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
Sheila
The
clerk
simply noted
that
there
is
time on the
docket
No
one
is
asking
the
court
at
this
point
Sheila
to
make
pushing
While
is
I
the
judge
despite
has noted
us to
fill
Law
1906
James H
Works
SW
Portland
it
503
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Street
Oregon
227
1928
your sense of
concerned
dates
Lake
involved
Charlene
inviting
the
really welcome
anyone
97205
the
that
that
fact
it
that
there
is
this and
will
do not
everyone
in the
an opening
or simply letting
want
play badly
us know
it
to
push
something
or otherwise
room
is
so that
appears
not
if
clear
we
appear
to
to
want
that
that
is
we
going
are
agree
me whether
we
can
the
ask to
court
move
503
2340
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
law
Guardian
Mar 11
sheila
the
would
works
of
com http
Civil
2014
potter
haven
2 30
I
334
http
at
seen
3 45 PM
works
com
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
responses
to
Charlene
really rather
law
Justice
doj state
time that
www
not
this e mail
provided
cut
it
The
that
doj state
believe
timing
close
that
would
Are all
or us
wrote
am free
on Monday
be a real scramble
plaintiffs
counsel
afternoon
for us
united
at
though
and
in asking
for
the
judge
to
unhappily
to
this
I
have
push
the
to
tell
you
Lake
up oral argument
perceived
think
that
push
this will
no one
We
will
have
to
give
the
not
ll
check
allow
defendants
ll
let
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
to
Lea
Misha Isaak
Ann
the
Re
freeing
If
9th
is
10
Tom
like
at
out
to
the
amicus
already
of
the
us that
schedule
but
or how
having
are filed
is
worked
to
I
take
know
that
time he will
This
would
through
and
his time to
you don
much
It
one
he wants
briefs
would
almost
a draft
opinion
with
do
for the
you may represent
to
time you provided
the
court
that
time
but
you may not
idea
and
lake
push
a careful
told
s schedule
law
to
it
no replies
s a bad
mailto
2014
judge
through
argument
then
it
law
works
think
it
that
the
represent
will
and
if
they
state
that
we
join the
backfire
com
12 43 PM
Johnson
12 17668
circuit
Sevcik
rules before
a jury trial
court
Jennifer
Beverly
Middleton
et
al v
Potter
Brian
Sheila
Sandoval
Katharine
et
al
VON TER
NOTICE
STEGGE
Oral
Attached
up time on the
the
think
the
idea
really reacted
he s already
you anticipate
know
He
as he framed
you re cutting
yet
t
than
when
be a good
on him
and
think
would
Easton
Argument Schedule
There
March
Cc
If
counsel
are available
it
What
to
go into
it
rather
from whatever
judges often
James Perriguey
To
Subject
and
that
with him
you don
a week
you know
lawyers
motion or agree
badly
right
And
him to
with my co
it
think
impose our timing
our response
arguments
less than
as federal
do it
get
filed
to
decision
play very
a reply
the
judge
his clerk
I
want
digest
certainly
can
haven
do not
try
for a quick

prepare
or to
were
before
court
to
open
McShane
judge
it
McShane
could
the
moot
week
of
our case
the
April 7th
that
may settle
s docket
dates
for us
could
we
www
works
com
all
be available
during
that
week
for oral
argument
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
law
Guardian
Mar 10
LEaston
Notice
the
If
works
of
com http
Civil
2014
at
This
you are not
materials
distribution
and
of
the
Lea
com mailto
communication
information
law
Justice
12 25 PM
dorsayindianlaw
confidential
law
97205
227
Ann
including
intended
intended
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
for a specific
recipient
any attachments
and
this communication
notified
taking
of
wrote
may contain
individual
and
you should delete
are hereby
or the
com
that
privileged
purpose
and
or
is
protected
this communication
any disclosure
any action
based
on it
and
copying
is
by
or shred
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
is
any U S
not
federal
intended
to
tax advice
be used
and
cannot
ii
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
of
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
under
party
the
Internal
any transaction
Revenue
Code
or matter
or
addressed
herein
Ninth
Lea
is
set in Sevcik
Nevada
case
for April 9th
at
9 am
Ann
From
ca9
ecfnoticing
ca9
uscourts
gov
mailto
ca9
ecfnoticing
ca9
uscourts
gov
Sent
To
Monday
Lea
Ann
Subject
Schedule
March
10
ca9
ecfnoticing
ca9
uscourts
al
NOTICE
gov
12 23 PM
Easton
12 17668
Beverly
Sevcik
et
al v
Brian
Sandoval
et
Oral Argument
Attached
NOTE
TO PUBLIC
attorneys of
electronic
ACCESS
record
copy
of
and
all
by the
filer
a copy
of
United
States
Court of
Notice
of
following
Judicial
documents
download
PACER
each
Docket
USERS
parties in a case
directed
The
2014
mailto
filed
access
document
fees
apply
to
for the
Ninth
if
all
this first
of
the
United
States
pro se litigants
electronically
during
Appeals
Conference
including
receipt
other
is
users
to
policy
receive
permits
one
required by law
To
avoid
free
or
later charges
viewing
Circuit
Activity
transaction
was
entered
on 03 10 2014
at
12 22 33 PM
PDT
and
filed
on
03 10 2014
Case Name
Beverly
Sevcik
et
al v
Brian
Sandoval
et
al
Case Number
https
12 17668
TransportRoom
Docket
Text
Notice
of
Francisco
View
view
the

caseno
you have
www
Appellate
9008892
Notice
reviewed
ca9
the
ECF or return
April 9
gov
download
calendar
completed
be electronically
mailed to
AW
will
Chris Albright
Byron
Jeffords
Carmine D
Lisa Bonauto
Tara
Attorney
Babione
Boccuzzi
Mary
Jr
Attorney
Borelli
Daniel
Bower
Professor
W
Dean
Gerard
Vincent
Bradley
Brill
Robert
Marek
Bute
Holly
Carmichael
Matthew
servlet
jspcaseId
the
David
Carla
cmecf
for your case
calendar
uscourts
Mr
Mr
gov
238600
2014
09 00 A M
Courtroom
San
here
http
www
ca9
uscourts
gov
calendar
12 17668
Mr
Laura
uscourts
form http
via
ca9
CA
php
When
ecf
Broyles
Joseph Christian
Christofferson
Chief
Counsel
Attorney
info
the
php
form to
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
view
SAN
Forms
OF HEARING
complete
FRANCISCO Office
the
NOTICE
form
and
file
it
Mr
David
Melanie
Mr
Codell
Cristol
Miss
Elizabeth L
Kelly Harrison
William C
Mr
John
Mr
Stephen
Mr
Thomas
Suzanne
Attorney
Eastman
Kent
Ehat
Molnar
Attorney
Fisher
Howle
Solicitor General
Kaba
Kaplan
Katherine
Raghav
Deputy
Ann
District
Keating
Krishnapriyan
Charles S
Mary
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
LiMandri
Attorney
Elizabeth McAlister
Mr
Shannon
Mr
Mark
Randal
Price
Minter
Richard
Director
Attorney
Munn
Genevieve
Mr
Nicholas
Mr
Abram John
Ms
Sarah E Piepmeier
Nadeau
M
Staci
Pratt
Peter
Renn
O Donnell
Pafford
Legal
Attorney
Attorney
Director
Attorney
Mr
Jerome Cary Roth
Ms
Dawn
Paul
Legal
William Mosier
Ms
Attorney
Sestito
March
Smith
Kevin
Trent
Monte
Ms
Solicitor General
Goldberg
Herbert
Mr
Attorney
Dushku
Charles Wayne
Moez
Ms
Deeley
Dove
Duncan
Alexander
Doctor
Mr
Attorney
Jon Davidson
Attorney
Snider
Chief
Counsel
Tsai
Attorney
Stewart
Christina Swarns
Craig
Taylor
Mr
Rocky
Chiu
Mr
Robert
Mr
Joseph Leo
Mr
Lynn
feng
Tyler
Ward
Dennis
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
Senior
Deputy
District
Attorney
Attorney
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
Jr
Wardle
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Attorney
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Johnson
Sheila
Thomas
lake
law works
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Sent
3 16 2014 10 59 49
Subject
Re 6 13
Hi
Jennifer
com
jjlslaw
Joyce Anna
Coie
Middleton
kdiaz
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Holm
aclu or org
Kristina
Perkins
Coie
multco us
katevts
PM
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
all
looks like
It
jmiddleton
MC
cv 01834
Perkins Coie
Jr
com
Monday
works for a
afternoon
So
call
let s
do
call
at
3 30
pm
send out
I will
number
call in
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Mar
14 2014
My Monday
We
to cancel
down
From
Sent
Potter
lake
Coie
If
Thomas R
Sheila
m pretty
free
the hearing
they
Lea Ann
sheila
potter
wrote
doj state or us
as
Tom
correctly
Jr
jmiddleton
katevts
multco
out
don
s not to foreclose a conversation

it
mailto
ll
be an
also
have
think that
on Monday
ba le to persuade the
uphill
TRJohnson
inclined
to talk
Middleton
Jennifer
com
can
and
and
that resolution
from the perspective of the
Coie
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
is
re at
my clients
anticipated
AG
a signicant
we
will agree
just to let
and the Governor
don twant to slow things
state defendants
com
perkinscoie
2014 10 19 AM
on Monday
come
be resolved without a hearing open to the public
jjlslaw
com
et
al
Kitzhaber
although
understand
for
Katharine
aclu
or
VON TER STEGGE
org
et
Holm
Kristina J
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
al
to have the hearing
definitely
kdiaz
us
any defendant
how
law works
Joyce Anna
Subject
but
really important
is
March 14
we
where
that this should
Johnson
Friday
Cc
Sheila
resolution as well
that that s
but process
To
Potter
argument on these cases That
oral
me
and
AM
an open and transparent process leading to
know
people
10 50
open as well
is
want a speedy
interest in
at
lot
why
ll
get
on a
of reasons people
telling
the court that
would
we
like
to
call
go
an open
to get this
are talking
preferably
about
with
forward
hearing
resolved
this
and
that
after
it
on
kid drop off at
in light
this
of his
8 30
comments
to the extent
at
that is
we
will
contact
the court early
week
next
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
com
mailto sheila
March 13
Thursday
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 36 PM
Jennifer Middleton
Coie
Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna katevts
multco us
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
law works
lake
couldn
that
we
From
Sent
do
call
on Friday
will ask for oral
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jennifer
Cc
lake
ll
be
in court
but could on
Monday
So
Perkins
Coie
that everyone
Isaak
knows
Misha
Perkins
anticipate
argument
mailto
March 13
Thursday
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 23 PM

TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
multco us
Middleton
law works
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Folks
would
like
in
call
a call around 2
pm Or I am
available
all
am
day on Monday
a meeting
in
I
all
believe Lake
day on Friday
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
Please
also
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
District
if
they were
wanting
still
more than happy
to
to
Summary
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
that
is
fine
Thank you
McShane
Court
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
NOTICE
me
230 DISCLOSURE
party
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
that
is
Pew
District of
the court
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Johnson
Sheila
Thomas
lake
law works
Isaak
Misha
3 17 2014 8 14 51
Subject
RE
Good morning
Call in
Here
number
is
jmiddleton
Perkins
Sent
Jennifer
com
jjlslaw
Joyce Anna
Coie
Middleton
kdiaz
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
aclu or org
Holm
Kristina
Perkins
Coie
multco us
katevts
AM
MC
6 13 cv 01834
the conference
Perkins Coie
Jr
com
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
informa on
call
712 432 1100
Code 102390
Access
Time 3 30pm
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Sunday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
jmiddleton
Subject
It
Thomas R
jjlslaw
Jr
com
Perkins
kdiaz
Coie
Middleton
Jennifer
Holm
org
aclu or
Kristina J
Katharine
Perkins
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
law works
lake
Perkins
com
Joyce Anna
Coie
multco us
katevts
Hi
2014 11 00 PM
March 16
Sheila
6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger
Re
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
all
looks like
Monday
works for a
afternoon
So
call
let s
do
call
at
3 30
pm
I will
send out
number
call in
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Mar
14 2014
My Monday
We
at
to cancel
people
and
down
From
Sent
resolution as well
that that s
but
Thomas R
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
as
Tom
correctly
Joyce Anna
Jr
and
anticipated
that resolution
and
my clients
don

it
ll
be an
uphill
Perkins
Coie
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
also
have
think that
on Monday
AG
a signicant
we
will agree
just to let
and the Governor
state defendants
com
2014 10 19 AM
Lea Ann Easton
com
jmiddleton
katevts
multco
law works
re at
really important
is
March 14
we
where
that this should
Johnson
Friday
lake
Sheila
but process
Potter
Coie
oral
me
Cc
Potter
know
To
AM
open as well
is
want a speedy
interest in
10 50
us
Jennifer
jjlslaw
Middleton
com
kdiaz
Katharine
aclu
or
VON TER STEGGE
org
Holm
Kristina J
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Subject
If
m pretty
free
on Monday
any defendant
the hearing
how
can
come
they
Lea Ann
to talk
definitely
out
Kitzhaber
why
understand
although
for
et
al
al
to have the hearing
inclined
is
et
the court that
telling
ll
get
on a
would
we
like
call
go
to
to get this
are talking
preferably
about
with
forward
an open
of reasons people
lot
hearing
resolved
this
and
after
on
this
8 30
kid drop off at
in light
it
of his
comments
to the extent
that is
we
that
will
contact
the court early
week
next
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
com
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 36 PM
March 13
Thursday
Jennifer Middleton
Coie
Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna katevts
multco us
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
law works
lake
couldn
that
we
From
Sent
do
call
on Friday
will ask for oral
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jennifer
Cc
lake
ll
be
but could on
in court
Monday
So
Perkins
Coie
that everyone
Isaak
Misha
knows
Perkins
anticipate
argument
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 23 PM
March 13
Thursday

TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
multco us
Middleton
law works
com
perkinscoie
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
Folks
would
like
in
call
a call around 2
pm Or I am
available
am
day on Monday
all
a meeting
in
I
all
believe Lake
day on Friday
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
asked
me
to
Please
notify
If
you do
the court
Thank you
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
at
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
Charlene
Pew

United States
District of
541
District
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
NOTICE
me
230 DISCLOSURE
party
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
that
McShane
Court
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Thomas
Johnson
lake
law works
Isaak
Misha
3 17 2014 8 16 19
Subject
RE
we
could
are both
free
Ann
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
lake
law
Coie
March
Sheila
Subject
Good
com
Time
Lea
Code
3 30
LEaston
2014
8 15 AM
Middleton
kdiaz
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
aclu or org
Holm
Kristina
Coie
Perkins
multco us
katevts
Jr
Perkins
Kitzhaber et al
Anna
now
starting
has another
at
meeting
at
3 30
but
she and
2 00
dorsayindianlaw
com
Coie
Middleton
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Here
Call in number
Access
mailto
Perkins
6 13 cv
morning
Geiger et al v
afternoon
17
Misha
RE
Joyce Anna
com
Thomas
Isaak
MC
do this earlier than
Easton
works
Coie
Jennifer
jjlslaw
AM
6 13 cv 01834
earlier in the
Perkins Coie
jmiddleton
Perkins
Sent
Any way
Jr
com
01834
is
712
the
Coie
MC
Jennifer
com
Joyce
Geiger et
conference
Anna
al v
call
432
1100
16
2014
11 00 PM
Jr
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
Katharine
or org
katevts
Kitzhaber
Holm
VON TER
Kristina
STEGGE
Perkins
multco us
et
al
information
102390
3 30pm
Ann
From
Lea
Sent
Sunday
Ann
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
lake
law
Easton
March
Sheila
Thomas
works
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org
Holm
katevts
com mailto
Kristina
multco us mailto
Subject
Re
lake
6 13 cv
law
Jennifer
katevts
MC
Middleton
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
com
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Perkins
01834
Coie
works
Coie
com
Isaak
kdiaz
Misha
aclu
Perkins
or org mailto
Coie
Joyce
kdiaz
aclu
Anna
multco us
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
Hi all
It
looks
call
like
afternoon
works
for a call
So let
s do call
at
3 30 pm
will
send
out
Ann
Lea
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
503
On
Monday
in number
790
OR
Columbia
97258
9060
Mar 14
sheila
LLP
1 SW
2014
potter
My
Monday
We
want
is
at
10 50 AM
doj state
open
sheila
potter
a speedy resolution
interest
don
that
think
a conversation
uphill battle
without
Sheila
we
a hearing
From
Johnson
Sent
Friday
will
agree
open
14
to
cancel
let
the
the
public
Jr
2014
the
Perkins
10 19 AM
correctly
process
oral argument
people
AG and
of
as Tom
transparent
the
perspective
Thomas
March
to
but
and
just to
persuade
important from the
as well
in an open
on Monday
to
doj state
or us
wrote
as well
significant
t
Potter
or us mailto
know
don
state
Coie
want
and
to
to
on these
that
Governor
anticipated
leading
that
me
slow
my clients
that
cases
s where
that
things
That
we
s not
re at
TRJohnson
and
to
and
foreclose
it
ll
be an
this should be resolved

down
but
process
defendants
mailto
also have
resolution
perkinscoie
com
is
really
To
Potter
Cc
lake
Sheila
Easton
Jennifer
works
com mailto
lake
works
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
law
or org
Holm
katevts
RE
Kristina
6 13 cv
m pretty free
after
kid
court
is
drop
Ann
come
to
why
MC
to
state
although
Coie
If
Middleton
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
com
com
Isaak
kdiaz
Misha
aclu
Perkins
or org mailto
Coie
Joyce
kdiaz
aclu
Anna
multco us
Geiger et
talk
8 30
go forward
the
out
katevts
01834
at
law
Perkins
on Monday
off
going
understand
they
Lea
multco us mailto
Subject
I
al v
so Lea
Kitzhaber
Ann
might want
for a lot
in light
to
of
have
and
is
inclined
of
his comments
an open
reasons
al
set something
any defendant
with it
et
to
hearing
people
would
ll
have
at
get
the
the
hearing
on this
like
to
on a call
hearing
to
get
the
I
I
preferably
think
can
extent
the
definitely
that
this resolved
is
how
as early
as possible
Lea
Ann
will
have
contact
R
Thomas
1120
Couch
with you telling
early next
Perkins
Coie
the
court
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
914
346
are talking
about
this and
that
we
LLP
4128
2176
8918
2176
From
Potter
Thursday
Sheila
com mailto
mailto
March
13
sheila
2014
potter
doj state
Lea
Ann
Easton
Cc
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org
Holm
Perkins
Subject
Coie
RE
couldn
knows
Jennifer
Kristina
Lea
Sent
Thursday
Ann
Anna
01834
do a call
anticipate
Middleton
MC
Easton
we
mailto
March
13
Coie
ll
al v
be in court
dorsayindianlaw
Middleton
lake
works
com mailto
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
MIsaak
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
katevts
perkinscoie
Re
law
MIsaak
com mailto
multco us mailto
Subject
Sheila
katevts
6 13 cv
01834
MC
to
a conference
Katharine
works
com mailto
com mailto
perkinscoie
or org mailto
Coie
katevts
multco us
et
but
aclu
Perkins
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
Thomas
al
could
on Monday
So that
everyone
com
9 23 PM
Jennifer
KJHolm
STEGGE
kdiaz
Misha
Kitzhaber
Cc
or org
Potter
com
Isaak
To
law
VON TER
com
LEaston
2014
or us
multco us mailto
Geiger et
will
Katharine
works
katevts
on Friday
that
law
Perkins
Joyce
6 13 cv
From
com
11 36 PM
To
we
Street
97209
727
Sent
Jr
that
week
Floor
Portland
FAX
court
Johnson
N W
Tenth
no issue
the
VON TER
com
kdiaz
KJHolm perkinscoie
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
STEGGE
com
aclu
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
com
com
perkinscoie
com
Joyce
Anna
Potter
Sheila
multco us
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
Folks
I
would
meeting
all
like
all
have
day on Friday but
day on Monday
Also
the
would
like
believe
call
could
Lake
is
your permission
Judge
to
discuss
likely
available
on behalf
McShane
this question
squeeze
in a call
from the
around
Court
2 pm
Or I
am in a
am available
as well
of
your clients
s question
and
will
to
advise
report
the
back
to
court
the
clerk
court
that
next
week
Lea
On
Ann
Mar 13
2014
at
4 54 PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge
McShane
asked
Argument on the
me to
contact
Summary Judgment
the
parties to
Motions
see if
in this case
they
If
were
you do
still
the
wanting
court
is
to
more
have
Oral
than happy
to
accommodate
way
Thank
Courtroom
Deputy
States
District
541
parties
of
431
to
Judge
District
under
or otherwise
attachments
fine
also
Please
notify
the
court
either
McShane
NOTICE
information
the
law
If
received
contents
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
is
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
contained
Michael
you have
keep
regulations
have
that
Court
applicable
that
reply e mail
Perkins
Oregon
e mail may contain
disclosure
IRS
you don
4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
if
Pew
Charlene
United
the
you
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
VON TER STEGGE

H
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton

jmiddleton
Sent
3 17 2014 8 25 37
Subject
Re 6 13
am
free at
now booked
but
com
kdiaz
Jr
Perkins
aclu or org
Holm
Coie
Jennifer
Kristina
Middleton
Perkins Coie
lake
Isaak
lawworks
Misha
com
Perkins
Joyce Anna
Coie
Thomas
Johnson
jjlslaw
AM
MC
cv 01834
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
into another meeting from 3 4
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
fax
multco us
On Mon Mar
17 2014
Any way we
could
at
do
8 16
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
jmiddleton
Sheila
Subject
jjlslaw
com
sheila
number
potter
Anna now
doj state or us
wrote
has another meeting at 3 30 butshe and
are both
starting at 2 00
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 8 15 AM
Jr
Coie
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
or
Here
is
the conference
712 432 1100
Code 102390
Time 3 30pm
Lea Ann
From
Sheila
Thomas R
Good morning
Access
Potter
Jennifer
org
Holm
Middleton
Kristina J
Lea Ann Easton
et
call
al
Kitzhaber
informa on
et
Katharine
Perkins
multco us
katevts
Call in
mailto
March 17
AM
this earlier than 3 30
free earlier in the afternoon
From
County Attorney
97214
al
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
lake
Perkins
law works
Coie
com
Joyce Anna
Sent
Sunday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
jmiddleton
Subject
Thomas R
jjlslaw
Jr
com
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
Coie
or
Middleton
Jennifer
Holm
org
Re
Kristina J
Katharine
Perkins
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
law works
lake
Perkins
com
Joyce Anna
Coie
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
all
looks like
It
multco us
katevts
Hi
2014 11 00 PM
March 16
Sheila
Monday
works for a
afternoon
So
call
let s
do
call
at
3 30
pm
I will
send out
number
call in
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Mar
14 2014
My Monday
We
to cancel
people
and
down
From
Sent
m pretty
but
Thomas R
Sheila
sheila
potter
as
Tom
correctly
Jr
and
my clients
anticipated
that resolution
and
don

it
ll
be an
Perkins
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
think that
on Monday
uphill
Coie
also
have
AG
a signicant
we
will agree
just to let
and the Governor
state defendants
com
2014 10 19 AM
com
jmiddleton
katevts
multco
on Monday
to talk
Middleton
Jennifer
jjlslaw
com
kdiaz
Katharine
aclu
or
VON TER STEGGE
org
Holm
Kristina J
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
us
free
wrote
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
law works
re at
really important
is
March 14
we
where
that this should
Joyce Anna
Subject
Sheila
resolution as well
that that s
Johnson
Friday
lake
Potter
but process
Potter
Coie
oral
me
Cc
AM
know
To
10 50
open as well
is
want a speedy
interest in
at
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
ll
get
on a
call
preferably
after
kid drop off at
8 30
If
any defendant
the hearing
how
come
they
Lea Ann
to have the hearing
inclined
is
can
definitely
out
although
understand
for
why
of reasons people
lot
the court that
telling
to
would
we
like
go
to get this
are talking
about
with
forward
an open
hearing
resolved
this
and
in light
it
on
this
of his
comments
to the extent
we
that
will
contact
the court early
week
next
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
From
Sent
To
trjohnson
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
com
mailto sheila
March 13
Thursday
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 36 PM
Jennifer Middleton
Coie
Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna katevts
multco us
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
lake
couldn
that
we
From
Sent
law works
do
call
on Friday
will ask for oral
Lea Ann Easton

Thursday
To
Jennifer
Cc
lake
ll
be
in court
but could on
Monday
So
Perkins
Coie
that everyone
Isaak
knows
Misha
Perkins
anticipate
argument
mailto
March 13
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 23 PM

TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
multco us
Middleton
law works
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Folks
would
like

well
in
call
a call around 2
pm Or I am
available
all
am
day on Monday
at
that is
a meeting
in
I
all
believe Lake
day on Friday
is
available
as
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
Please
also
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
District
if
they were
wanting
still
more than happy
to
to
Summary
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
that
is
fine
Thank you
McShane
Court
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
NOTICE
me
230 DISCLOSURE
party
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
that
is
Pew
District of
the court
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Katharine
CC
Potter
VON TER STEGGE

H Lea Ann Easton
Johnson
Thomas
com
aclu or org
Holm
Sheila
jmiddleton
Sent
3 17 2014 8 58 54
Subject
Re 6 13
In free
On Mar
am
Perkins Coie
Jr
Kristina
Jennifer Middleton
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
AM
MC
cv 01834
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
til
www
http
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
Coie
jjlslaw
law works com
17 2014
free at
8 25
at
AM
now booked
but
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
katevts
multco us
wrote
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
fax
multco us
On Mon Mar
17 2014
Any way we
could
at
do
8 16
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
jmiddleton
Sheila
Potter
Sheila
sheila
Subject
jjlslaw
wrote
are both
starting at 2 00
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 8 15 AM
com
Jr
Coie
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
or
number
doj state or us
Thomas R
Good morning
potter
Anna now
Jennifer
org
Holm
Middleton
Kristina J
Here
is
the conference
712 432 1100
et
call
al
Kitzhaber
informa on
et
Katharine
Perkins
multco us
katevts
Call in
mailto
March 17
AM
From
County Attorney
97214
al
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
lake
Perkins
law works
Coie
com
Joyce Anna
Code 102390
Access
Time 3 30pm
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Sunday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
jmiddleton
katevts
It
2014 11 00 PM
Thomas R
jjlslaw
com
Jr
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
Coie
or
Middleton
Jennifer
Holm
org
Kristina J
Katharine
Perkins
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
law works
lake
Perkins
Coie
com
Joyce Anna
multco us
Subject
Hi
March 16
Sheila
Re
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
all
looks like
Monday
works for a
afternoon
So
call
let s
do
call
at
3 30
pm
I will
send out
call in
number
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Mar
14 2014
My Monday
We
is
at
to cancel
people
and
AM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
resolution as well
but
as
Tom
correctly
oral
know
me
doj state or us
wrote
open as well
want a speedy
interest in
10 50

that that s
where
that this should
we
re at
and
anticipated
that resolution
and
my clients
I
don

it
ll
be an
uphill
think that
on Monday
also
have
AG
a signicant
we
will agree
just to let
and the Governor
down
but process
From
Sent
To
Potter
Cc
lake
Sheila
free
jmiddleton
katevts
multco
the hearing
can
come
they
jjlslaw
Lea Ann
et
al
understand
although
Katharine
kdiaz
aclu
or
VON TER STEGGE
org
Kitzhaber
for
et
Holm
Kristina J
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
al
Middleton
com
to have the hearing
definitely
out
com
perkinscoie
us
to talk
inclined
is
TRJohnson
mailto
Jennifer
com
on Monday
any defendant
Coie
Perkins
m pretty
how
Jr
state defendants
2014 10 19 AM
Lea Ann Easton
law works
Subject
If
March 14
Joyce Anna
Coie
Thomas R
Johnson
Friday
really important
is
why
the court that
telling
ll
get
on a
to
would
we
like
call
go
to get this
are talking
preferably
about
with
forward
an open
of reasons people
lot
hearing
resolved
this
and
that
after
kid drop off at
in light
it
on
this
of his
8 30
comments
to the extent
that is
we
will
contact
the court early
week
next
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
From
Sent
To
trjohnson
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
com
mailto sheila
March 13
Thursday
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 36 PM
Jennifer Middleton
Coie
Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna katevts
multco us
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
lake
couldn
that
we
From
Sent
law works
do
call
on Friday
will ask for oral
Lea Ann Easton

Thursday
To
Jennifer
Cc
lake
Middleton
law works
be
in court
but could on
Monday
So
Coie
that everyone
Isaak
knows
Misha
Perkins
anticipate
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 23 PM
Potter
com
ll
Perkins
argument
mailto
March 13
Sheila
jmiddleton
Katharine
jjlslaw
com
VON TER STEGGE

kdiaz
aclu
or
org
KJHolm
perkinscoie
at
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
TRJohnson
Subject
com
perkinscoie
Joyce Anna
Re
et
Potter
al
Sheila
Kitzhaber
multco
katevts
et
us
al
Folks
would
like
in
call
pm Or I am
a call around 2
available
am
day on Monday
all
a meeting
in
I
day on Friday
all
believe Lake
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
Please
also
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
District
if
they were
still
wanting
more than happy
to
to
Summary
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
that
is
fine
Thank you
McShane
Court
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
any transaction
NOTICE
me
230 DISCLOSURE
party
is
the contents conf
that
you have received
idential
this
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
that
is
Pew
District of
the court
or
Coie LLP to be used
may
Treasury
contain
herein
or
Department
Revenue Code
and IRS

matter addressed
This communication
with
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
not
penalties
information
If
you have received
it
in error
please
advise
the sender
contents
Thank you
and any
attachments without
the
Lake Perriguey
CC
Thomas
Johnson
To
Potter
Sheila
Holm
Kristina
3 17 2014 9 03 10
RE
is
Lea Ann can be
unless
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
MC
we
can
Jennifer
Isaak
Middleton
Misha
jmiddleton
Perkins
Coie
com
jjlslaw
Joyce
kdiaz
or
org
Anna
AM
6 13 cv 01834
not free in the afternoon
VON TER STEGGE
Perkins Coie
Subject
Lake
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
If
Jr
Katharine
aclu
From
Geiger et al v
talk
this
Kitzhaber et al
morning
can make
it
work
Otherwise
think the afternoon
is
out
the Geiger representative
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Lake
Sent
perkinscoie
Perriguey
Monday
To
Katharine
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
mailto lake
VON TER STEGGE

H Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Re
In free
Lake James
Holm
org
or
law works
Kristina J
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins
com
2014 8 59 AM
March 17
Sheila
aclu
til
com
et
al
Coie
v
Isaak
Kitzhaber
Jr
Perkins
Misha
et
Coie
Perkins
Jennifer
Coie
Middleton
jmiddleton
jjlslaw
com
Joyce Anna
al
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Mar
I
am
17 2014
free at
Civil
at
Justice
8 25
AM
now booked
but
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
katevts
multco us
wrote
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
On Mon Mar
17 2014
Any way we
could
at
do
8 16
AM
Potter
Sheila
starting at 2 00
sheila
potter
Anna now
doj state or us
wrote
are both
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
dorsayindianlaw
com
Thomas R
jjlslaw
Jr
com
Coie
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
or
Middleton
Jennifer
Holm
org
Kristina J
Katharine
Perkins
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
law works
lake
Perkins
com
Joyce Anna
Coie
multco us
katevts
Subject
Good morning
Call in
LEaston
2014 8 15 AM
Sheila
jmiddleton
mailto
March 17
Here
number
is
the conference
et
call
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
informa on
712 432 1100
Code 102390
Access
Time 3 30pm
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Sunday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
jmiddleton
Subject
It
Thomas R
jjlslaw
Jr
com
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
Coie
or
Middleton
Jennifer
Holm
org
Kristina J
Katharine
Perkins
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
law works
lake
Perkins
com
Joyce Anna
Coie
multco us
katevts
Hi
2014 11 00 PM
March 16
Sheila
Re
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
all
looks like
Monday
works for a
afternoon
So
call
let s
do
call
at
3 30
pm
I will
send out
number
call in
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Mar
14 2014
My Monday
We
at
to cancel
people
and
down
From
Sent
but
Thomas R
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
as
Tom
correctly
Jr
and
anticipated
that resolution
and
my clients
don

it
ll
be an
uphill
Perkins
Coie
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
also
have
think that
on Monday
AG
a signicant
we
will agree
just to let
and the Governor
state defendants
com
2014 10 19 AM
Lea Ann Easton
com
jmiddleton
katevts
multco
law works
re at
really important
is
March 14
we
where
that this should
Joyce Anna
Subject
resolution as well
that that s
Johnson
Friday
lake
Sheila
but process
Potter
Coie
oral
me
Cc
Potter
know
To
AM
open as well
is
want a speedy
interest in
10 50
Middleton
Jennifer
jjlslaw
com
kdiaz
Katharine
aclu
us
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
or
VON TER STEGGE
org
Holm
Kristina J
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
If
m pretty
free
on Monday
any defendant
the hearing
how
can
come
they
Lea Ann
to talk
definitely
out
to have the hearing
inclined
is
although
for
why
understand
the court that
telling
ll
get
on a
would
we
like
call
go
to
to get this
are talking
preferably
about
with
forward
an open
of reasons people
lot
hearing
resolved
this
and
after
on
this
8 30
kid drop off at
in light
it
of his
comments
to the extent
we
that
will
contact
the court early
week
next
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
com
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 36 PM
March 13
Thursday
Jennifer Middleton
Coie
Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna katevts
multco us
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
law works
lake
couldn
that
we
From
Sent
do
call
on Friday
will ask for oral
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jennifer
Cc
lake
ll
be
but could on
in court
Monday
So
Perkins
Coie
that everyone
Isaak
Misha
knows
Perkins
anticipate
argument
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 23 PM
March 13
Thursday

TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
multco us
Middleton
law works
com
perkinscoie
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
Folks
would
like
in
call
a call around 2
pm Or I am
available
am
day on Monday
all
a meeting
in
I
all
believe Lake
day on Friday
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
the court
Thank you
Pew
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
at
that is
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
United States
District of
541
District
Court
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Johnson
CC
Lake Perriguey Katharine

jmiddleton
Coie
Thomas
VON TER STEGGE
kdiaz
Potter
Holm
aclu or org
Sheila
Kristina
Jennifer
Middleton
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Perkins
Misha
Joyce Anna
Sent
3 17 2014 9 19 12
Subject
Re 6 13
Do
com
jjlslaw
Perkins Coie
Jr
AM
cv 01834
MC
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
folks have time Tuesday morning
Lea Ann
On Mar
If
Lake
17 2014
is
9 03
at
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Thomas
Johnson
we
can
Lea Ann can be
unless
AM
talk
this
Perkins Coie
Jr
morning
TRJohnson
can make
it
perkinscoie
work
Otherwise
com
wrote
think the afternoon
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Lake
Sent
perkinscoie
Perriguey
Monday
To
Katharine
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
mailto lake
VON TER STEGGE

H Lea Ann Easton
or
Subject
Re
In free
Lake James
Holm
org
law works
Kristina J
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins
com
2014 8 59 AM
March 17
Sheila
aclu
til
com
et
al
Coie
v
Isaak
Kitzhaber
Jr
Perkins
Misha
et
Coie
Perkins
Jennifer
Coie
Middleton
jmiddleton
Joyce Anna
al
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Mar
I
am
17 2014
free at
Civil
at
Justice
8 25
AM
now booked
but
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
katevts
multco us
wrote
jjlslaw
com
is
out
katevts
multco us multco us
On Mon Mar
17 2014
Any way we
could
at
do
8 16
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
potter
sheila
Anna now
wrote
doj state or us
are both
starting at 2 00
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 8 15 AM
Thomas R
jjlslaw
Jr
com
Coie
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
or
Middleton
Jennifer
Holm
org
Kristina J
Katharine
Perkins
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
law works
lake
Perkins
Coie
com
Joyce Anna
multco us
katevts
Subject
Good morning
Call in
Sheila
Sheila
jmiddleton
mailto
March 17
Potter
From
AM
Here
number
is
the conference
et
call
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
informa on
712 432 1100
Code 102390
Access
Time 3 30pm
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Sunday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
jmiddleton
katevts
It
2014 11 00 PM
Thomas R
jjlslaw
com
Jr
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
Coie
or
Middleton
Jennifer
Holm
org
Kristina J
Katharine
Perkins
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
law works
lake
Perkins
Coie
com
Joyce Anna
multco us
Subject
Hi
March 16
Sheila
Re
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
all
looks like
Monday
works for a
afternoon
So
call
let s
do
call
at
3 30
pm
I will
send out
call in
number
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Mar
14 2014
My Monday
We
is
at
to cancel
people
and
AM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
resolution as well
but
as
Tom
correctly
oral
know
me
doj state or us
wrote
open as well
want a speedy
interest in
10 50

that that s
where
that this should
we
re at
and
anticipated
that resolution
and
my clients
I
don

it
ll
be an
uphill
think that
on Monday
also
have
AG
a signicant
we
will agree
just to let
and the Governor
down
but process
From
Sent
To
Potter
Cc
lake
Sheila
free
jmiddleton
katevts
multco
the hearing
can
come
they
jjlslaw
Lea Ann
et
al
understand
although
Katharine
kdiaz
aclu
or
VON TER STEGGE
org
Kitzhaber
for
et
Holm
Kristina J
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
al
Middleton
com
to have the hearing
definitely
out
com
perkinscoie
us
to talk
inclined
is
TRJohnson
mailto
Jennifer
com
on Monday
any defendant
Coie
Perkins
m pretty
how
Jr
state defendants
2014 10 19 AM
Lea Ann Easton
law works
Subject
If
March 14
Joyce Anna
Coie
Thomas R
Johnson
Friday
really important
is
why
the court that
telling
ll
get
on a
to
would
we
like
call
go
to get this
are talking
preferably
about
with
forward
an open
of reasons people
lot
hearing
resolved
this
and
after
on
this
8 30
kid drop off at
in light
it
of his
comments
to the extent
that is
we
that
will
contact
the court early
week
next
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
com
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 36 PM
March 13
Thursday
Jennifer Middleton
Coie
Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna katevts
multco us
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
law works
lake
couldn
that
we
From
Sent
do
call
on Friday
will ask for oral
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jennifer
Cc
lake
ll
be
in court
but could on
Monday
So
Perkins
Coie
that everyone
Isaak
knows
Misha
Perkins
anticipate
argument
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 23 PM
March 13
Thursday

TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
multco us
Middleton
law works
com
perkinscoie
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Folks
would
like
in
call
a call around 2
pm Or I am
available
all
am
day on Monday
a meeting
in
I
all
believe Lake
day on Friday
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
at
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
Please
also
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
District
if
they were
wanting
still
more than happy
to
to
Summary
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
that
is
fine
Thank you
McShane
Court
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
NOTICE
me
230 DISCLOSURE
party
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
that
is
Pew
District of
the court
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC

kdiaz
3 17 2014 9 21 32
Subject
RE
m available
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
until
Ann
To
Johnson
Cc
Lake
March
Thomas
Perriguey
Perkins
Coie
Subject
Re
Do
have
folks
Lea
On
Mar 17
Lake
LEaston
2014
9 19 AM
Jr
Perkins
6 13 cv
Perkins Coie
Geiger et al v
Isaak
Thomas
1120
jjlslaw
Joyce
com
Anna
aclu
com
Coie
STEGGE
or org
Potter
Holm
Sheila
Kristina
Jennifer
Perkins
Middleton
Coie
Isaak
Misha
01834
MC
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
morning
not
OR
503
503
E MAIL
914
346
Lake
Monday
unless
Coie
can
Lea
we
Ann
Jr
Perkins
perkinscoie
talk
can
com
Potter
this morning
be the
can
make
it
work
Otherwise
LLP
4128
Coie
kdiaz
til
Works
503
503
com
Ann
Easton
aclu
Johnson
com mailto
or org
Holm
Thomas
Jr
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Kristina
Perkins
01834
MC
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
law
works
works
503
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com law
com k
works
com
https
et
urldefense
06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
m 0xUWSvKPPfRkPSOxM1bYCR5d0
3D
Isaak
2BuHZLxY
2F0zL5V8xwOnDUoCrI4
3D
proofpoint
3D
3D
0A
0A
lagojaime
Guardian
am free
Jennifer
aclu
Misha
Perkins
al
s f904e674c743a65168aa104d83f2bf709a709d4799fc9539610b91c1a22a9ee3
Mar 17
Coie
Coie
kdiaz
Perriguey
Oregon
www
katevts
Perkins
com
Madison
law
works
8 59 AM
LLC
Portland
T
law
com
STEGGE
Lea
6 13 cv
James H
SW
lake
2014
Anna
Re
free
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Joyce
Subject
mailto
17
VON TER
or org mailto
OTLA
Geiger representative
8918
Sheila
Middleton
skype
Coie
wrote
2176
March
Katharine
0A r
afternoon
out
Perkins
Perriguey
Cc
www
is
Thomas
TRJohnson
2176
To
http
in the
Sent
1906
Johnson
com mailto
Street
97209
727
From
Law
free
afternoon
Couch
503
CELL
Lake
9 03 AM
Floor
PHONE
FAX
at
Johnson
Portland
jmiddleton
Perkins Coie
Anna
perkinscoie
the
N W
Tenth
On
Misha
Kitzhaber et al
dorsayindianlaw
VON TER
kdiaz
time Tuesday
2014
is
think
In
mailto
Joyce
Ann
TRJohnson
If
MC
17
com
Kristina
on Tuesday
Katharine
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Thomas R Jr Perkins Coie

VON TER STEGGE Jennifer Middleton
AM
6 13 cv 01834
10am
Easton
Holm
aclu or org
Sent
Johnson
of
2014
Civil
at
Justice
8 25 AM
multco us mailto
at
but
now
Katharine
katevts
booked
VON TER
multco us
into
another
STEGGE
wrote
meeting
from 3 4
com v1
url
u http
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
3D
988
0A r
500
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
katevts
urldefense
3D
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
https
County
proofpoint
com v1
url
u http
m 0xUWSvKPPfRkPSOxM1bYCR5d0
multco usk
2BuHZLxY
2F0zL5V8xwOnDUoCrI4
3D
3D
06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IV
hphQ
0A
0A
s 3f2de333f42342b5154c5e0c675e1176d87173db03b97189427260578feeb7a4
On
Mon
Mar 17
sheila
Any way
I
we
free
Ann
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
law
March
Sheila
Good
RE
Time
Lea
LEaston
2014
8 15 AM
Jr
Perkins
com mailto
lake
com mailto
6 13 cv
Here
Call in number
Access
mailto
Kristina
morning
Code
3 30
afternoon
17
potter
Anna
doj state
now
starting
or us
has another
at
wrote
meeting
at
3 30
but
she and
2 00
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
Coie
Middleton
Katharine
712
works
dorsayindianlaw
com
the
Jennifer
MC
VON TER
STEGGE
com
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
01834
is
law
Perkins
multco us mailto
Subject
Sheila
sheila
Thomas
Holm
Potter
or us mailto
earlier in the
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
8 16 AM
do this earlier than
Easton
works
or org
at
doj state
could
are both
lake
2014
potter
Coie
Isaak
com
kdiaz
Misha
aclu
Perkins
or org mailto
Coie
Joyce
kdiaz
aclu
Anna
multco us
Geiger et
conference
al v
call
432
1100
tel
712
432
16
2014
11 00 PM
Jr
Perkins
Kitzhaber
et
al
information
1100
102390
3 30pm
Ann
From
Lea
Sent
Sunday
Ann
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
lake
law
Easton
March
Sheila
Thomas
works
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org
Holm
katevts
com mailto
Kristina
multco us mailto
Subject
Re
lake
6 13 cv
law
katevts
MC
Jennifer
Middleton
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
com
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Perkins
01834
Coie
works
Coie
Isaak
com
kdiaz
Misha
aclu
Perkins
or org mailto
Coie
Joyce
kdiaz
aclu
Anna
multco us
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
Hi all
It
looks
call
Lea
like
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
On
afternoon
works
for a call
So let
s do call
at
3 30 pm
Ann
Dorsay
503
Monday
in number
790
OR
9060
Mar 14
sheila
LLP
1 SW
Columbia
97258
tel
2014
potter
503
at
790
9060
10 50 AM
doj state
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
will
send
out
My
Monday
We
want
is
open
as well
a speedy resolution
significant
interest
don
that
think
a conversation
uphill battle
without
we
a hearing
Johnson
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Cc
lake
agree
open
to
Thomas
public
the
know
don
Coie
mailto
Jennifer
lake
works
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
RE
6 13 cv
m pretty free
after
kid
court
is
drop
come
to
why
MC
to
state
although
Coie
that
slow
That
we
s not
re at
and
to
and
foreclose
it
ll
be an
this should be resolved
things
down
but
process
is
really
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
If
Middleton
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
com
com
Isaak
kdiaz
Misha
aclu
Perkins
or org mailto
Coie
Joyce
kdiaz
aclu
Anna
multco us
Geiger et
talk
8 30
go forward
the
out
katevts
01834
at
law
Perkins
on Monday
off
going
understand
they
Ann
multco us mailto
Subject
I
Kristina
me
cases
s where
also have
resolution
10 19 AM
Easton
Holm
that
my clients
that
defendants
com mailto
or org
to
to
on these
and
want
anticipated
leading
that
Governor
state
Perkins
process
oral argument
people
the
2014
Lea
let
the
of
correctly
works
law
cancel
AG and
Jr
14
as Tom
transparent
the
perspective
March
Sheila
to
but
and
just to
persuade
important from the

From
will
on Monday
to
as well
in an open
al v
so Lea
Kitzhaber
Ann
might want
for a lot
in light
to
of
have
and
is
inclined
of
his comments
an open
reasons
al
set something
any defendant
with it
et
to
hearing
people
would
ll
have
at
get
the
the
hearing
on this
like
to
on a call
hearing
to
get
the
I
I
preferably
think
can
extent
the
definitely
that
this resolved
is
how
as early
as possible
Lea
Ann
will
have
contact
R
Thomas
1120
Couch
with you telling
early next
Perkins
Coie
the
court
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
914
are talking
about
this and
that
LLP
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
tel
tel
tel
503
503
503
727
914
346
Potter
Thursday
Sheila
com mailto
mailto
March
13
2176
8918
2176
From
sheila
2014
potter
doj state
Lea
Ann
Easton
Cc
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org
Holm
Perkins
Subject
Coie
RE
couldn
knows
Jennifer
Kristina
Lea
Sent
Thursday
Ann
Anna
01834
do a call
anticipate
Middleton
MC
Easton
we
mailto
March
13
Coie
Geiger et
I
will
ll
al v
Kitzhaber
be in court
dorsayindianlaw
Middleton
works
com mailto
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
MIsaak
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
katevts
Subject
law
MIsaak
com mailto
multco us mailto
Re
Sheila
com mailto
com mailto
perkinscoie
katevts
MC
or org mailto
Coie
katevts
multco us
et
but
aclu
Perkins
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
Thomas
al
could
on Monday
So that
everyone
com
9 23 PM
lake
perkinscoie
STEGGE
kdiaz
Misha
multco us mailto
Jennifer
KJHolm
com
Isaak
Cc
or org
Potter
VON TER
com
To
law
or us
LEaston
2014
Katharine
works
katevts
on Friday
that
law
Perkins
Joyce
6 13 cv
From
com
11 36 PM
To
we
Street
97209
727
Sent
Jr
that
week
Floor
Portland
FAX
court
Johnson
N W
Tenth
no issue
the
6 13 cv
01834
to
a conference
Katharine
works
VON TER
com
kdiaz
KJHolm perkinscoie
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
STEGGE
com
aclu
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
com
com
perkinscoie
com
Joyce
Anna
Potter
Sheila
multco us
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
Folks
I
would
meeting
all
like
all
have
day on Friday but
day on Monday
believe
call
could
Lake
is
to
likely
discuss
squeeze
available
this question
in a call
as well
from the
around
2 pm
Court
Or I
am in a
am available
we
Also
the
would
like
your permission
Judge
on behalf
McShane
of
your clients
s question
and
to
will
advise
report
the
back
court
to
the
clerk
court
that
next
week
Lea
On
Ann
Mar 13
2014
at
4 54 PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge
McShane
asked
Argument on the
to
accommodate
way
Thank
Courtroom
the
parties
Deputy
of
431
to
Judge
District
tel
under
or otherwise
attachments
29 20431
is
fine
still
also
the
Please
wanting
court
notify
is
the
to
have
more
Oral
than happy
court
either
McShane
4105
information
the
law
If
received
contents
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
that
were
you do
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
avoiding
have
they
If
NOTICE
you have
keep
regulations
contained
Michael
applicable
that
reply e mail
Perkins
you don
see if
in this case
Court
28541
e mail may contain
disclosure
IRS
parties to
Oregon
4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
if
the
Motions
you
States
District
541
contact
Pew
Charlene
United
me to
Summary Judgment
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Thomas
Johnson
To
Perkins Coie
Jr
Lea Ann Easton
CC
VON TER STEGGE

jmiddleton
Sent
3 17 2014 9 24 51
Subject
RE
1120
Couch
aclu or org
Potter
Holm
Sheila
Kristina
Jennifer
Middleton
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Perkins
Misha
AM
MC
6 13 cv 01834
9 10 and 11 12 work
Thomas R Johnson
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
Coie
Between
com
jjlslaw
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
me
for
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Monday
To
Johnson
Cc
Lake
Subject
Do
mailto
Thomas R
Jr
VON TER STEGGE
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Re
com
dorsayindianlaw
Coie
Perkins
Katharine
Kristina J
LEaston
2014 9 19 AM
March 17
Perriguey
Holm
org
or
com
perkinscoie
et
Potter
Misha
v
al
Sheila
Perkins
Kitzhaber
et
Jennifer
Middleton
jmiddleton
jjlslaw
com
kdiaz
aclu
Joyce Anna
Coie
al
folks have time Tuesday morning
Lea Ann
On Mar
If
Lake
17 2014
is
at
9 03
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Thomas
Johnson
Lea Ann can be
unless
AM
can
we
talk
this
Perkins Coie
Jr
morning
TRJohnson
can make
it
perkinscoie
work
Otherwise
com
wrote
think the afternoon
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
Lake
perkinscoie
Perriguey
Monday
To
Katharine
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
mailto lake
VON TER STEGGE

H Lea Ann Easton
or
Subject
Re
In free
Lake James
org
Holm
law works
Kristina J
Perriguey
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins
com
2014 8 59 AM
March 17
Sheila
aclu
til
com
et
al
Coie
v
Isaak
Kitzhaber
Jr
Perkins
Misha
et
al
Coie
Perkins
Jennifer
Coie
Middleton
Joyce Anna
jmiddleton
jjlslaw
com
is
out
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Mar
I
am
17 2014
free at
Civil
Justice
8 25
at
AM
now booked
but
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
katevts
multco us
wrote
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
fax
multco us multco us
On Mon Mar
17 2014
Any way we
could
at
do
8 16
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Sheila
jmiddleton
Sheila
sheila
potter
Anna now
doj state or us
wrote
are both
starting at 2 00
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 8 15 AM
Thomas R
jjlslaw
Jr
com
Coie
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
or
Subject
Good morning
Access
Potter
Jennifer
Holm
org
Middleton
Kristina J
Katharine
Perkins
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
law works
lake
Perkins
Coie
com
Joyce Anna
multco us
katevts
Call in
mailto
March 17
AM
From
County Attorney
97214
number
Here
is
the conference
et
call
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
informa on
712 432 1100
Code 102390
Time 3 30pm
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Sunday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
jmiddleton
katevts
Subject
Hi
It
March 16
Sheila
2014 11 00 PM
Thomas R
jjlslaw
com
Jr
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
Coie
or
Jennifer
org
Holm
Middleton
Kristina J
Katharine
Perkins
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
law works
lake
Perkins
Coie
com
Joyce Anna
multco us
Re
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
all
looks like
Lea Ann
Monday
afternoon
works for a
call
So
let s
do
call
at
3 30
pm
I will
send out
call in
number
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Mar
14 2014
My Monday
We
down
Sent
me
To
Potter
Cc
lake
If
March 14
Sheila
Joyce Anna
free
Jr
the hearing
katevts
multco
Lea Ann
Tom
correctly
my clients
anticipated
and
that resolution
don
and
it
ll
be an
also
have
think that
on Monday
uphill
TRJohnson
mailto
Middleton
com
AG
a signicant
we
will agree
just to let
and the Governor
state defendants
com
perkinscoie
et
al
aclu
or
VON TER STEGGE
org
Kitzhaber
for
et
Holm
Kristina J
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
al
understand
although
Katharine
kdiaz
to have the hearing
definitely
out
Coie
jjlslaw
as
us
to talk
inclined
can
come
they
wrote
doj state or us
Jennifer
jmiddleton
is
re at
Perkins
com
on Monday
any defendant
how
potter
2014 10 19 AM
m pretty
sheila
Lea Ann Easton
law works
Subject
but
really important
is
Thomas R
Johnson
we
where
that that s
that this should
Friday
Coie
resolution as well
but process
From
oral
know
and
Sheila
interest in
people
Potter
open as well
is
want a speedy
to cancel
AM
10 50
at
why
telling
ll
get
on a
to
of reasons people
lot
the court that
would
we
like
call
go
an open
to get this
are talking
preferably
about
with
forward
hearing
resolved
this
and
that
after
it
on
kid drop off at
in light
this
of his
8 30
comments
to the extent
we
will
contact
the court early
week
next
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
From
Sent
To
trjohnson
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
com
mailto sheila
March 13
Thursday
potter
doj state or us
2014 11 36 PM
Jennifer Middleton
Coie
Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna katevts
multco us
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
lake
couldn
that
we
From
Sent
To
law works
do
call
on Friday
will ask for oral
Lea Ann Easton

Thursday
Jennifer
Middleton
ll
be
in court
but could on
argument
mailto
March 13
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 23 PM
Potter
Sheila
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
Monday
So
at
that is
Perkins
Coie
that everyone
Isaak
knows
Misha
Perkins
anticipate
Cc
com jmiddleton jjlslaw com kdiaz aclu or

com Joyce Anna Potter Sheila H katevts
Re 6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger et al v Kitzhaber et al
law works
lake
TRJohnson
Subject
KJHolm
org
multco
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
us
Folks
would
like
in
call
pm Or I am
a call around 2
available
am
day on Monday
all
a meeting
in
I
day on Friday
all
believe Lake
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
Please
also
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
District
if
they were
wanting
still
more than happy
to
to
Summary
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
that
is
fine
Thank you
McShane
Court
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
NOTICE
me
230 DISCLOSURE
party
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
that
is
Pew
District of
the court
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Katharine
CC
Potter
or
VON TER STEGGE

H Lea Ann Easton Tom
Sheila
Holm
org
Kristina
Sent
3 17 2014 9 29 01
Subject
Re 6 13
Johnson
Perkins Coie
Jennifer
Misha Isaak
Middleton
Jennifer
Middleton kdiaz
aclu
Joyce Anna
AM
MC
cv 01834
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Hi All
am
Let s try for 11 30
today
Conference Call number
number
Call in
is
the same
712 432 1100
Code 102390
Access
Time 3 30pm
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Mar
am
17 2014
free at
Civil
Justice
8 25
at
AM
now booked
but
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
katevts
multco us
wrote
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
fax
multco us
On Mon Mar
17 2014
Any way we
could
at
do
8 16
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
jmiddleton
katevts
Subject
mailto
March 17
Sheila
AM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
Anna now
From
County Attorney
97214
doj state or us
wrote
are both
starting at 2 00
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 8 15 AM
Thomas R
jjlslaw
com
Jr
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
Coie
or
Jennifer
org
Holm
Middleton
Kristina J
multco us
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
Katharine
Perkins
al
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
lake
Perkins
law works
Coie
com
Joyce Anna
Good morning
Call in
Here
number
is
the conference
call
informa on
712 432 1100
Code 102390
Access
Time 3 30pm
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Sunday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
jmiddleton
katevts
It
2014 11 00 PM
Thomas R
jjlslaw
com
Jr
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
Coie
or
Middleton
Jennifer
Holm
org
Kristina J
Katharine
Perkins
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
Misha
law works
lake
Perkins
Coie
com
Joyce Anna
multco us
Subject
Hi
March 16
Sheila
Re
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
all
looks like
Monday
afternoon
works for a
call
So
let s
do
call
at
3 30
pm
I will
send out
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
Portland
LLP
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Mar
14 2014
My Monday
is
at
10 50
AM
open as well
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
call in
number
We
want a speedy
me
and
down
Sent
To
Potter
Cc
lake
Sheila
m pretty
free
the hearing
Jr
jmiddleton
katevts
multco
Lea Ann
don
and
it
ll
be an
TRJohnson
think that
on Monday
uphill
also
have
AG
a signicant
we
will agree
just to let
and the Governor
state defendants
com
perkinscoie
jjlslaw
Middleton
com
et
al
Kitzhaber
although
aclu
or
VON TER STEGGE
org
understand
for
et
Holm
Kristina J
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
al
to have the hearing
definitely
Katharine
kdiaz
us
to talk
inclined
out
and
that resolution
mailto
Jennifer
com
can
my clients
anticipated
Coie
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
is
come
they
correctly
2014 10 19 AM
on Monday
any defendant
how
Tom
Subject
If
Thomas R
law works
re at
really important
is
March 14
Joyce Anna
Coie
that this should
Johnson
Friday
we
where
that that s
but process
From
as
oral
know
people
but
interest in
to cancel
resolution as well
lot
why
ll
get
on a
to
of reasons people
telling
the court that
would
we
like
call
go
an open
to get this
are talking
preferably
about
with
forward
hearing
resolved
this
and
that
after
it
on
kid drop off at
in light
this
of his
8 30
comments
to the extent
that is
we
will
contact
the court early
week
next
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
From
Sent
To
trjohnson
Potter
perkinscoie
Sheila
com
mailto sheila
March 13
Thursday
potter
doj state or us
2014 11 36 PM
Jennifer Middleton
Coie
Johnson Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna katevts
multco us
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
lake
couldn
that
we
law works
do
call
on Friday
will ask for oral
ll
argument
be
in court
but could on
Monday
So
at
Perkins
Coie
that everyone
Isaak
knows
Misha
Perkins
anticipate
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jennifer
Cc
lake
mailto
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 23 PM
March 13
Thursday

TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
multco us
Middleton
law works
com
perkinscoie
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
Folks
would
like
in
call
pm Or I am
a call around 2
available
am
day on Monday
all
a meeting
in
I
all
day on Friday
believe Lake
is
available
as
well
Also
would
like
Judge McShane

clients
to the court
to advise
next
week
Lea Ann
On Mar
13 2014
at
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
is
if
they were
still
wanting
more than happy
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
Thank you
Pew
District of
the court
District
McShane
Court
Oregon
431 4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
you have received
idential
this
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE
otherwise
with
Treasury
Department
and IRS
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
is
not
intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
or
Coie LLP to be used
may
contain
herein
or
Revenue Code
ii
taxpayer
for
the purpose
of
avoiding
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
or
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
3 18 2014 9 22 04
Subject
Rummell
Just tried you in Salem
Thomas
Sheila
Perkins Coie
Jr
m around
AM
all
morning except
for
a meeting from 10 00
to
10 30
Thanks
Sheila
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
IRS CIRCULAR
perkinscoie
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
3 19 2014 1 01 33
Subject
Wow
http
www
law works com
Sheila
H
AM
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
3 19 2014 10 09 12
Subject
Simple marriage case
Notice
Sheila
This communication
intended
for
and are hereby
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
Wonderful
Lea Ann
with
including
avoiding
that
it
and purpose
communication
and
is strictly
IRS regulations
any attachments
party
contain
is
we
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the

distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
not intended
to another
response
this
notified
may
any attachments
individual
Notice 2
AM
including
specific
you should delete
recipient
attachments
to
US
Code
or
or matter addressed
want to play on your team instead of
federal tax advice
be used
my team
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
herein
in this
for the
or
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
3 19 2014 10 15 02
Subject
Re
Aw
On
Thanks
Mar 19
LEaston
Notice
love
2014
Sheila
my team
at
Mary
10 09 AM
dorsayindianlaw
This
AM
Simple marriage case
gets
Lea
Ann
com mailto
communication
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
the
credit
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
for the
beautiful
writing
Easton
LEaston
including
information
all
or the
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
com
of
that
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
party
any U S
is
under
not
the
Lea
Ann
response
want
to
play on your team
instead
of
my team
tax advice
to
Internal
any transaction
herein
Wonderful
federal
intended
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
From
Charlene
To
Lea Ann Easton
Pew
CC
Joyce Anna
KJHolm
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
jjlslaw
com
com lake
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
Sent
3 19 2014 11 06 47
AM
Subject
Re 6 13
MC
cv 01834
Geiger et al v
multco us
katevts
com
law works
kdiaz
MIsaak
aclu or org
perkinscoie
com
Potter
Sheila
Kitzhaber et al
Counsel
Wondering
you have determined
if
the argument
if
Oral Argument
when you can
Please advise
will
be necessary
in this
case or
not
If
so
was counsel open
to
advancing
Thank you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
From
Lea Ann
To
Charlene
Easton
Pew
Room 2100
Eugene
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
LEaston
97401
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
com
Pew
ord uscourts gov
com
lake
law works com
jmiddleton
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
MIsaak
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
anna joyce
doj state or us
anna
Cc
lake
katevts
law works
multco
us
03 14 2014
Date
Re
Subject
6 13
katevts
jjlslaw
com
jmiddleton
com
MIsaak
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
joyce
doj state or us
com
perkinscoie
sheila potter
kdiaz
com
aclu or org
TRJohnson
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu or org
perkinscoie
sheila potter
com
doj state or us
multco us
AM
11
06
cv
01834
MC
Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et al
Ms Pew
McShane
by
all
Counsel for the
response on whether
parties will
oral argument
is
to respond to

necessary
next
question early next
week and have
week
Lea Ann Easton
Co
Counsel for Geiger
On Mar
Counsel
13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
Thank you
Pew
District of
the court
District
Oregon
431 4105
Court
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
From
Lake Perriguey
To
mary h
Sent
3 19 2014 11 19 25
Subject
Geiger v
response brief
is
beautiful
Sheila
Joyce Anna
Kitzhaber
elegant
your work engenders
Personally
and
inspiring
a feeling of enormous pride and appreciation
with the immense responsibility for and power
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
Potter
AM
Anna and Mary
Sheila
The
msn com
williams
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
of
its
governing
to live
do such patently exc
in
a state where those entrusted
ellent
work
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
KJHolm
jmiddleton
TRJohnson
Sent
3 19 2014 12 10 54
PM
Subject
RE
MC
No ce
This
intended
6 13 cv 01834
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
this
any disclosure
communica on and
and
com
is
kdiaz
MIsaak
privileged or
by law
protected
conde
you are
If
aclu or org
perkinscoie
com
Potter
Sheila
Kitzhaber et al
may contain
any a achments
including
multco us
katevts
law works
Geiger et al v
copying
com
jjlslaw
com lake
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on

hereby no ed that
and are
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
any a achments
inform you that any

is
party any transac
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
Code
avoiding
Hi
we
or
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ii
ce contained
ed
or recom
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
all
First
hope everyone has had an opportunity to read the
moment
to be grateful that
we
live
and prac ce
in
another inquiry about argument and advancing

response and
joint
Oregon
rather
the argument
ve taken the liberty of dra ing a proposed
Sum
Response to the
State s
mary Judgment
than Nevada or Michig

During our
joint
call
an
on Monda
Second
we
Mo ons
and take a
the court has sent
discussed sending
her a
response
Ms Pew
have been authorized by counsel to respond to your inquiry on behalf of
discussed the court s ques on on whether oral argument
from the pares

to the Court
We
if
We
do not believe two hours
he believes addi onal
have been contacted
by
at least
objec ons to those amicus pleadings

April
If
1 2014 based on the court
the court has
me
available
prior
me is
is
all
pares
necessary and believe
the Court should hear argument
necessary for such argument and an
is
hour would
suce
but would defer
required
two aorneys who are preparing amicus pleadings

It
Counsel for the pares have
that
is
our understanding
scheduling
that
those amicus ple
in
support of plain s and have no
adings will be submied on or before
order
rd
to April 23
and based on counsel
s availability
the pares would agree to advancing
argument to a new date
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Pew
Charlene
Wednesday
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
anna joyce
lake
law works
Subject
Re
ord uscourts gov
March 19
doj state or us
com
MIsaak
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
2014 11 07 AM
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
et
jjlslaw
com
al
com
katevts
sheila potter
Kitzhaber
et
al
multco
us
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu or
TRJohnson
org
KJHolm
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
com
Counsel
Wondering
you have determined
if
the argument
Oral Argument
if
when you can
Please advise
be necessary
will
in this
case or
If
not
so
was counsel open
to
advancing
Thank you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
From
Lea Ann
To
Charlene
Easton
Pew
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
LEaston
lake
katevts
law works
multco us
katevts
03 14 2014
11
06
cv
01834
Date
Re
Subject
6 13
97401
com
Pew
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts gov
com
lake
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
KJHolm
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
anna
Cc
Room 2100
Eugene
Charlene
com
perkinscoie com
law works
joyce
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
MIsaak
doj state or us
jjlslaw
com
jmiddleton
com
MIsaak
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
anna
joyce
doj state or us
com
perkinscoie
sheila potter
kdiaz
com
aclu or org
TRJohnson
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
sheila potter
or org
com
doj state or us
multco us
AM
MC
Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et al
Ms Pew
McShane
by
all
Counsel for the
response on whether
parties will
oral argument
is
to respond to
necessary
next
question early next
week and have
week
Lea Ann Easton
Co
Counsel for Geiger
On Mar
13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
Thank you
Pew

United States
District of
the court
District
Oregon
Court
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
541
431 4105
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Joyce Anna
works
com
jmiddleton
MIsaak
Sent
3 19 2014 12 13 23
Subject
Re 6 13
cv 01834
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
com
com
kdiaz
aclu or org
Potter
Sheila
KJHolm
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com lake
com
law
PM
MC
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Lea Ann
This email works for
me
Thanks for drafting
it
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Wed
No ce
Mar 19 2014
This
intended
at
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
any disclosure
this
PM
12 10
including
Lea Ann Easton
communica on and
copying
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
communica on
or the taking
wrote
conde
you are
com
dorsayindianlaw
may contain
any a achments
LEaston
n al informa on
and are
hereby no ed that
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
any a achments
inform you that any

is
party any transac
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
Code
avoiding
Hi
we
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ed
or recom
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
all
First
moment
to be grateful that
we
live
and prac ce

joint
response and
Ms Pew
in
Oregon
Response to the
State s
rather
the argument
Sum
mary Judgment

During our
joint
response
call
on Monda
an
y
Second
we
Mo ons
and take a
the court has sent
discussed sending
her a
from the pares

to the Court
We
if
We
do not believe two hours
have been contacted
by
me is
If
the court has
me
available
prior
all
pares

that
necessary for such argument and an
is
It
hour would
suce
but would defer
required
at least

April
is
is
our understanding
scheduling
that
in
adings will be submied on or before
those amicus ple
order
rd
to April 23
and based on counsel
s availability
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Charlene
Pew
Wednesday
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
anna joyce
lake
law works
Subject
Re
ord uscourts
March 19
doj state or us
com
MIsaak
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
2014 11 07 AM
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
et
jjlslaw
com
al
com
sheila
katevts
potter
Kitzhaber
et
multco
us
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu
or
TRJohnson
org
KJHolm
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
com
al
Counsel
Wondering
if
the argument
you have determined

Please advise
if
Oral Argument
when you can
Charlene
will
be necessary
Pew
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
in this
Thank you
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
Room 2100
Eugene
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
97401
case or
not
If
so
was counsel open
to
advancing
From
Lea Ann
To
Charlene
Easton
Pew
LEaston
com
lake
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
KJHolm
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
anna
Cc
lake
katevts
law works
multco us
katevts
03 14 2014
11
06
cv
01834
Date
Re
Subject
6 13
com
Pew
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
com
perkinscoie com
law works
joyce
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
MIsaak
doj state or us
jjlslaw
com
jmiddleton
com
MIsaak
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
anna
joyce
doj state or us
com
perkinscoie
sheila potter
kdiaz
com
aclu or org
TRJohnson
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
sheila potter
or org
com
doj state or us
multco us
AM
MC
Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et al
Ms Pew
I
McShane
by
all
Counsel for the
response on whether
oral argument
is
to respond to
parties will
necessary
next
question early next
week and have
week
Lea Ann Easton
Co
Counsel for Geiger
On Mar
13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
Thank you
Pew
District of
the court
District
Oregon
431 4105
Court
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
From
Isaak
To
Misha
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton

Kristina
Coie
Joyce Anna
Perkins Coie
jmiddleton
lake
law works
com
jjlslaw
com
multco us
katevts
Sheila
Potter
Johnson
kdiaz
aclu
Thomas
or
org
Holm
Perkins
Jr
Coie
Sent
3 19 2014 12 34 16
PM
Subject
RE
MC
6 13 cv 01834
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Lea Ann
We
agree
subject
and
strikethrough
to
the revisions below
will
re
send in Word
you have
if
trouble
seeing the proposed
revisions indicated
in
color
Misha
Misha Isaak
PHONE
From
Sent
To
503 727 2086
Lea Ann Easton
Wednesday
anna joyce
Coie
Coie LLP
Perkins
LEaston
com
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 12 11 PM
doj state or us
law works
lake
mailto
March 19
jmiddleton
Isaak
Misha
jjlslaw
Perkins
com
multco
katevts
Coie
sheila
potter
us
kdiaz
aclu or
doj state or us
org
Johnson
Holm
Kristina J
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Perkins
Coie
Subject
No ce
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
any disclosure
this
including
et
al
Kitzhaber
communica on and
copying
and
al
may contain
any a achments
et
is
protected
privileged or
by law
conde
you are
If
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on

hereby no ed that
and are
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
including
any a achments
inform you that any

is
party any transac
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
Code
avoiding
Hi
we
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ed
or recom
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
all
First
moment
to be grateful that
we
live
and prac ce

joint
response and
in
Oregon
Response to the
State s
rather
the argument
Sum
mary Judgment

During our
joint
call
an
on Monda
Second
we
Mo ons
and take a
the court has sent
discussed sending
her a
response
Ms Pew
from the pares

to the Court
We
if
We
is
do not believe two hours is necessary
have been contacted
by
at least
me is
all
pares

for
that
such argument and an hour would
suce
ut would defer
required

It
is
our understanding
that
in
those amicus pleadings

will
be submi ed on or befor
April
the court has
If
and pares
which
we
me
scheduling
between
available
order
April
1 and
were oered
to
Mr
to April 23
rd
and based on the counsel

understand
prior
Counsel are not
s availability of
available
all
of April
all
counsel
2 or 7
Perriguey as poten al dates
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Pew
Charlene
Wednesday
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
anna joyce
lake
law works
Subject
ord uscourts
doj state or us
com
gov
MIsaak
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
Re
Pew
Charlene
mailto
ord uscourts
gov
2014 11 07 AM
March 19
et
com
jjlslaw
com
v
al
sheila
katevts
potter
Kitzhaber
et
multco
us
kdiaz
aclu
or
TRJohnson
doj state or us
org
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
com
perkinscoie
al
Counsel
Wondering
you have determined
if
the argument
Oral Argument
if
when you can
Please advise
will
be necessary
in this
case or
not
If
so
was counsel open
to
advancing
Thank you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
From
To
Lea Ann
Charlene
Easton
Pew
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
LEaston
katevts
Date
lake
law works
multco us
katevts
03 14 2014
11
06
cv
01834
Subject
Re
6 13
97401
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts gov
com
lake
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
KJHolm
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
anna
Cc
Room 2100
Eugene
Charlene
com
Pew
com
perkinscoie com
law works
joyce
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
MIsaak
doj state or us
anna
jjlslaw
com
jmiddleton
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
joyce
doj state or us
jjlslaw
com
perkinscoie
sheila potter
kdiaz
com
aclu or org
TRJohnson
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
sheila potter
or org
com
doj state or us
multco us
AM
MC
Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et al
Ms Pew
McShane
by
all
Counsel for the
response on whether
parties will
oral argument
is
to respond to

necessary
next
week
question early next
week and have
Lea Ann Easton
Co
Counsel for Geiger
On Mar
13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
Please
also
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
District
if
they were
wanting
still
more than happy
to
to
Summary
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
that
is
fine
Thank you
McShane
Court
Oregon
431 4105
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
is
Pew
District of
the court
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
H
VON TER STEGGE
From
Potter
To
Katharine
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna
lake
com
Sheila
law works
Sent
3 19 2014 12 40 37
Subject
Re 6 13
Attachments
image002
cv 01834
jmiddleton
MIsaak
com kdiaz
com TRJohnson
KJHolm
aclu or org
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
com
PM
MC
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
png
I think it
looks good but would suggest a few edits
below
If in fact plaintiffs
won t file
replies
we should say that right upfront and link it
to any suggestion that oral argument
might happen
earlier
Sheila
On Mar 19
2014
at 12 13 PM
wrote
Lea
Ann
This
email
Kate
von
works
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
On
3138
Wed
County
for drafting
Mar 19
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
LEaston
Thanks
it
Stegge
Senior
katevts
for me
988
500
Portland
katevts
co
2014
12 10 PM
at
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
dorsayindianlaw
Multnomah
Lea
com mailto
Ann
multco us
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Hi all
First
hope
everyone
has had
an opportunity
to
read
the
State
s Response
to
the
Summary
Judgment Motions and take a moment to be grateful that we live and practice in Oregon rather
than Nevada
or Michigan
Second
the court has sent another inquiry about argument and
advancing
and
Ms
I
ve
the
argument
taken
the
During our call
liberty
of
drafting
on Monday
a proposed
we
discussed
joint
sending
her a joint
response
response
Pew
have
been
for the
would
authorized
parties have
like
to
We
have
of
plaintiffs
been
keep
the
contacted
and
have
those amicus pleadings

scheduling order
Plaintiffs
have
argument
argument
as to the
at
to
case
date
an hour
length of
to
will
to
your inquiry on behalf

on whether
least two attorneys who

to
those
be submitted
the
response
motions
if
respond
Court s question
of
all
oral argument
parties
is
Counsel
necessary
and
on for argument
by at
a time when
a new
the
no objections
reviewed
their summary judgment

April 23rd
by counsel
discussed
That
counsel
the
briefs
and
the
amicus
pleadings
It
is
April 1
2014
do not
case
available
Court wishes
may suffice
time reserved
are preparing
on or before
being
are all
amicus
to
but counsel
for argument
the
the
do so
will
plan
if
Two
of
to
file
pleadings
based
on the
replies in support
parties would
course
may not
defer
to
be open
to
necessary
the
that
Court s
Court has time available
hours
in support
our understanding
of
prior to
advancing
for such
Court s preference
Lea
Ann
From
Charlene
mailto
Sent
Pew
Charlene
Wednesday
To
Lea
Cc
anna
Ann
ord uscourts
Pew
March
KJHolm
works
doj state
com
Pew
Charlene
perkinscoie
doj state
perkinscoie
Re
6 13 cv
ord uscourts
Pew
gov
ord uscourts
doj state
gov
com mailto
kdiaz
sheila
Geiger et
aclu
com
MIsaak
TRJohnson
or org mailto
lake
law
perkinscoie
potter
doj state
perkinscoie
al v
or us
com
perkinscoie
or us mailto
MC
joyce
multco us
KJHolm
com mailto
01834
anna
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
com mailto
MIsaak
potter
Subject
Charlene
mailto
11 07 AM
or us mailto
multco us mailto
TRJohnson
2014
com mailto
perkinscoie
sheila
19
mailto
gov
Easton
joyce
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
gov
ord uscourts
works
kdiaz
aclu
or org
com mailto
lake
law
com
or us
com
Kitzhaber
et
al
Counsel
Wondering
so
was
if
image002
Charlene
Deputy
States
of
8th
OR
Phone
541
To
Lea
lake
431
Judge
argument
Please
be necessary
advise
when
4105
Pew
Michael
tel
28541
LEaston
Pew
ord uscourts
law
works
gov
com mailto
com mailto
aclu
29 20431
4105
dorsayindianlaw
gov
mailto
mailto
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
kdiaz
com mailto
Charlene
Charlene
law
works
com mailto
Pew
kdiaz
LEaston
lake
law
com
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
joyce
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
anna
joyce
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
gov
kdiaz
aclu
or us
doj state
or us
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
sheila
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
03 14 2014
Ms
Re
multco us
law
or org mailto
kdiaz
com
doj state
potter
katevts
lake
com
sheila
multco us mailto
com mailto
com
or org
perkinscoie
anna
com
gov
works
jmiddleton jjlslaw
aclu
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts
ord uscourts
com
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org mailto
Pew
KJHolm
Subject
katevts
multco us mailto
katevts
multco us
11 06 AM
6 13 cv
01834
MC
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
to
contact
Pew
have
If
you
McShane
KJHolm
Date
or not
Thank
2100
ord uscourts
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
in this case
you can
Court
Room
Easton
com
or org
Oral Argument will
the
97401
Ann
Charlene
works
if
advancing
Oregon
Charlene
Cc
to
District
Avenue
Eugene
From
determined
to
Pew
District
405
open
png
Courtroom
United
you have
counsel
been
authorized
by all
of
counsel
in these
cases
you to
respond
to
your
aclu
inquiry on behalf
McShane
next
Judge
McShane
early next
Counsel
week
and
have
for the
parties will
a response
meet
on whether
to
discuss
oral argument
Judge
is
necessary
to
have
week
Thank
you and
Lea
Ann
Co
Counsel
On
of
s question
have
a great
weekend
Easton
Mar 13
for Geiger Plaintiffs
2014
at
4 54 PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge
McShane
asked
Argument on the
to
accommodate
way
Thank
Charlene
Courtroom
United
541
431
contact
the
parties
if
the
parties to
Motions
you don
that
Pew
Deputy
of
to
Judge
District
Michael
McShane
Court
Oregon
4105
tel
28541
29 20431
4105
see if
in this case
you
States
District
me to
Summary Judgment
is
fine
they
If
also
were
you do
Please
still
the
wanting
court
notify
is
the
more
court
Oral
than happy
either

I3
i
III
Lli
i
innniii
iiiiiiiiiti
vvA
uu
iii4liii
rra
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Lea Ann Easton

Coie
lake
Coie
Katharine
law works
Sent
3 19 2014 12 49 39
PM
Subject
RE
MC
We
have
court
not
that
counsel
Ms
I
won
for the
whether
be filing
State
and
to
com
file
Rummell
com
kdiaz
aclu or org
Holm
Kristina
J
Perkins
Perkins Coie
Jr
Kitzhaber et al
a reply
In
jjlslaw
Thomas
Geiger et al v
a reply
the
jmiddleton
Johnson
so it
an effort
plaintiffs
would
to
be premature
synthesize
here
is
the
a proposed
to
changes
revised
represent
to
proposed
by
the
version
Pew
have
been
for the
would
We
6 13 cv 01834
yet decided
we
VON TER STEGGE
Joyce Anna
authorized
parties have
like
have
to
been
keep
by counsel
discussed
the
case
contacted
understanding
that
Court s scheduling
If
the
the
were
Lea
offered
to
to
Mr
to

on whether
of
all
oral argument
parties
is
Counsel
necessary
and
pleadings
will
are preparing
be submitted
amicus
on or before
pleadings
April 1
It
2014
is
our
based
order
available
Court wishes
respond
Court s question
amicus
on the
parties are all
to
on for argument
by at
those
the
the
do so
between
Counsel
Perriguey
April 1 and
parties would
are not
all
as potential
April 23
be open
to
at
a time when
advancing
available
of
argument
April 2 or 7
to
all
counsel
a new
which
we
and
date
if
understand
dates
Ann
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Wednesday
Sheila
To
Katharine
Cc
Lea
Ann
Coie
Perkins
Coie
Subject
Re
think
it
replies
VON TER
Easton
Perkins
lake
looks
19
Anna
doj state
jmiddleton jjlslaw
works
01834
but
MC
com
Isaak
Geiger et
would
should say that
might happen
potter
or us
12 41 PM
STEGGE
law
good
sheila
2014
Joyce
6 13 cv
we
mailto
March
suggest
Misha
al v
com
Kitzhaber
a few edits
right upfront
and
kdiaz
Perkins
link
Coie
et
to
Mar 19
katevts
earlier
Lea
2014
at
12 13 PM
multco us mailto
Katharine
katevts
VON TER
multco us
STEGGE
wrote
Ann
This
email
Kate
von
Senior
works
Ter
for me
Thanks
for drafting
it
Stegge
Assistant
County
Attorney
Multnomah
County
If
in fact
any suggestion
Sheila
On
or org
Johnson
Holm
Thomas
Kristina
R
Jr
al
below
it
aclu
Attorney
plaintiffs
that
won
file
oral argument
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
v1
0A r
503
mailto
url
Suite
988
500
co
OR
97214
fax
3377
katevts
u http
Portland
multnomah or us multco us https
multco us k
QBulutk4JWKz9MUdVmlht5kPe0PL8Kr4L1jyGC05Mpg
m 4vU505fqOdl6iSRvmjTvdhrQzNQwAppS2HGmowIB88M
3D
3D
urldefense
3D
proofpoint
com
3D
0A
0A
s 22200c1adf694074835b5eb13531f86fcc7f5c51eeb5146bee841cd6dae1bf85
On
Wed
Mar 19
LEaston
2014
at
12 10 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
com mailto
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Hi all
First
hope
Judgment
than
Nevada
advancing
and
Ms
I
everyone
Motions
ve
and
has had
take
or Michigan
the
Second
argument
taken
the
an opportunity
a moment to
the
court
During our call
liberty
of
to
read
be grateful
drafting
the
that
has sent
on Monday
live
another
we
a proposed
State
we
s Response
and
inquiry about
discussed
joint
to
practice
sending
the
Summary
in Oregon
argument
rather
and
her a joint
response
response
Pew
have
been
for the
would
authorized
parties have
like
to
We
have
of
plaintiffs
those
been
keep
by counsel
discussed
the
case
contacted
amicus
and
order
Plaintiffs
have
will
reviewed

April 23rd
argument
at
to
argument
as to
Lea
date
an hour
the
the
length
response
That
counsel
if
the
those

on whether
briefs
being
are all
but
time reserved
amicus
of
all
oral argument
are preparing
amicus
pleadings
It
is
April 1
2014
on or before
and
the
do not
case
to
counsel
plan
if
available
Court wishes
may suffice
of
to
be submitted
motions
a time when
a new
to
no objections
pleadings
scheduling
respond
Court s question
parties
is
Counsel
necessary
and
on for argument
by at
have
to
the
the
the
do so
will
based
file
in support
on the
hours
replies in support
course
be open
may not
defer
to
to
necessary
the
that
Court s
parties would
Two
of
to
pleadings
our understanding
of
prior to
advancing
for such
Court s preference
for argument
Ann
From
Charlene
mailto
Sent
Pew
Charlene
Wednesday
To
Lea
Cc
anna
Ann
KJHolm
works
doj state
MIsaak
potter
TRJohnson
Subject
2014
Charlene
mailto
Pew
Charlene
ord uscourts
Pew
gov
ord uscourts
gov
11 07 AM
or us mailto
com mailto
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
sheila
19
mailto
gov
Easton
joyce
com
gov
ord uscourts
March
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
ord uscourts
Pew
perkinscoie
doj state
perkinscoie
Re
katevts
com mailto
6 13 cv
com mailto
MIsaak
sheila
TRJohnson
Geiger et
doj state
aclu
com
or org mailto
lake
law
perkinscoie
potter
doj state
perkinscoie
al v
or us
com
kdiaz
perkinscoie
or us mailto
MC
joyce
multco us
KJHolm
com mailto
01834
anna
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Kitzhaber
works
kdiaz
aclu
com mailto
or org
lake
law
com
or us
com
et
al
Counsel
Wondering
so
was
if
you have
counsel
image002
Charlene
Courtroom
open
determined
to
advancing
if
Oral Argument will
the
argument
png
Pew
Deputy
to
Judge
Michael
McShane
Please
be necessary
advise
when
in this case
you can
Thank
or not
you
If
United
States
District
405
of
8th
Avenue
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
From
Lea
To
District
431
Ann
Charlene
lake
works
Room
2100
97401
4105
tel
Easton
Charlene
Cc
Court
Oregon
Pew
28541
LEaston
ord uscourts
Pew
ord uscourts
law
works
com
gov
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
kdiaz
com mailto
aclu
4105
dorsayindianlaw
gov
mailto
mailto
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org
29 20431
com mailto
Charlene
Charlene
law
works
com mailto
Pew
kdiaz
LEaston
lake
law
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
anna
joyce
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
aclu
or us
doj state
or us
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
sheila
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
Date
03 14 2014
Subject
Ms
I
Re
katevts
law
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
com
doj state
potter
multco us mailto
lake
com
sheila
katevts
com mailto
com
kdiaz
TRJohnson
joyce
gov
or org
KJHolm
anna
com
gov
works
jmiddleton jjlslaw
aclu
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts
ord uscourts
com
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org mailto
Pew
multco us
katevts
multco us mailto
katevts
multco us
11 06 AM
6 13 cv
01834
MC
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
to
contact
Pew
have
been
authorized
inquiry on behalf
McShane
next
s question
by all
Judge
of
counsel
McShane
early next
in these
Counsel
week
and
have
cases
for the
parties will
a response
you to
meet
on whether
to
respond
discuss
oral argument
to
your
Judge
is
necessary
to
have
week
Thank
you and
Lea
Ann
Co
Counsel
On
of
have
a great
weekend
Easton
Mar 13
2014
at
4 54 PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge
McShane
asked
Argument on the
to
accommodate
way
Thank
Charlene
Courtroom
United
541
431
contact
the
parties
if
the
parties to
Motions
you don
that
Pew
Deputy
of
to
Judge
District
Michael
McShane
Court
Oregon
4105
tel
28541
29 20431
4105
see if
in this case
you
States
District
me to
Summary Judgment
is
fine
they
If
also
were
you do
Please
still
the
wanting
court
notify
is
the
more
court
Oral
than happy
either
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
attachments
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
IRS
NOTICE
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Lea Ann Easton

Coie
lake
Coie
Katharine
law works
Sent
3 19 2014 12 49 39
PM
Subject
RE
MC
We
have
court
not
that
counsel
Ms
I
won
for the
whether
be filing
State
and
to
com
file
Rummell
com
kdiaz
aclu or org
Holm
Kristina
J
Perkins
Perkins Coie
Jr
Kitzhaber et al
a reply
In
jjlslaw
Thomas
Geiger et al v
a reply
the
jmiddleton
Johnson
so it
an effort
plaintiffs
would
to
be premature
synthesize
here
is
the
a proposed
to
changes
revised
represent
to
proposed
by
the
version
Pew
have
been
for the
would
We
6 13 cv 01834
yet decided
we
VON TER STEGGE
Joyce Anna
authorized
parties have
like
have
to
been
keep
by counsel
discussed
the
case
contacted
understanding
that
Court s scheduling
If
the
the
were
Lea
offered
to
to
Mr
to

on whether
of
all
oral argument
parties
is
Counsel
necessary
and
pleadings
will
are preparing
be submitted
amicus
on or before
pleadings
April 1
It
2014
is
our
based
order
available
Court wishes
respond
Court s question
amicus
on the
parties are all
to
on for argument
by at
those
the
the
do so
between
Counsel
Perriguey
April 1 and
parties would
are not
all
as potential
April 23
be open
to
at
a time when
advancing
available
of
argument
April 2 or 7
to
all
counsel
a new
which
we
and
date
if
understand
dates
Ann
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Wednesday
Sheila
To
Katharine
Cc
Lea
Ann
Coie
Perkins
Coie
Subject
Re
think
it
replies
VON TER
Easton
Perkins
lake
looks
19
Anna
doj state
jmiddleton jjlslaw
works
01834
but
MC
com
Isaak
Geiger et
would
should say that
might happen
potter
or us
12 41 PM
STEGGE
law
good
sheila
2014
Joyce
6 13 cv
we
mailto
March
suggest
Misha
al v
com
Kitzhaber
a few edits
right upfront
and
kdiaz
Perkins
link
Coie
et
to
Mar 19
katevts
earlier
Lea
2014
at
12 13 PM
multco us mailto
Katharine
katevts
VON TER
multco us
STEGGE
wrote
Ann
This
email
Kate
von
Senior
works
Ter
for me
Thanks
for drafting
it
Stegge
Assistant
County
Attorney
Multnomah
County
If
in fact
any suggestion
Sheila
On
or org
Johnson
Holm
Thomas
Kristina
R
Jr
al
below
it
aclu
Attorney
plaintiffs
that
won
file
oral argument
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
v1
0A r
503
mailto
url
Suite
988
500
co
OR
97214
fax
3377
katevts
u http
Portland
multco us k
3D
3D
urldefense
3D
proofpoint
com
3D
0A
0A
On
Wed
Mar 19
LEaston
2014
at
12 10 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
com mailto
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Hi all
First
hope
Judgment
than
Nevada
advancing
and
Ms
I
everyone
Motions
ve
and
has had
take
or Michigan
the
Second
argument
taken
the
an opportunity
a moment to
the
court
During our call
liberty
of
to
read
be grateful
drafting
the
that
has sent
on Monday
live
another
we
a proposed
State
we
s Response
and
inquiry about
discussed
joint
to
practice
sending
the
Summary
in Oregon
argument
rather
and
her a joint
response
response
Pew
have
been
for the
would
authorized
parties have
like
to
We
have
of
plaintiffs
those
been
keep
by counsel
discussed
the
case
contacted
amicus
and
order
Plaintiffs
have
will
reviewed

April 23rd
argument
at
to
argument
as to
Lea
date
an hour
the
the
length
response
That
counsel
if
the
those

on whether
briefs
being
are all
but
time reserved
amicus
of
all
oral argument
are preparing
amicus
pleadings
It
is
April 1
2014
on or before
and
the
do not
case
to
counsel
plan
if
available
Court wishes
may suffice
of
to
be submitted
motions
a time when
a new
to
no objections
pleadings
scheduling
respond
Court s question
parties
is
Counsel
necessary
and
on for argument
by at
have
to
the
the
the
do so
will
based
file
in support
on the
hours
replies in support
course
be open
may not
defer
to
to
necessary
the
that
Court s
parties would
Two
of
to
pleadings
our understanding
of
prior to
advancing
for such
Court s preference
for argument
Ann
From
Charlene
mailto
Sent
Pew
Charlene
Wednesday
To
Lea
Cc
anna
Ann
KJHolm
works
doj state
MIsaak
potter
TRJohnson
Subject
2014
Charlene
mailto
Pew
Charlene
ord uscourts
Pew
gov
ord uscourts
gov
11 07 AM
or us mailto
com mailto
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
sheila
19
mailto
gov
Easton
joyce
com
gov
ord uscourts
March
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
ord uscourts
Pew
perkinscoie
doj state
perkinscoie
Re
katevts
com mailto
6 13 cv
com mailto
MIsaak
sheila
TRJohnson
Geiger et
doj state
aclu
com
or org mailto
lake
law
perkinscoie
potter
doj state
perkinscoie
al v
or us
com
kdiaz
perkinscoie
or us mailto
MC
joyce
multco us
KJHolm
com mailto
01834
anna
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Kitzhaber
works
kdiaz
aclu
com mailto
or org
lake
law
com
or us
com
et
al
Counsel
Wondering
so
was
if
you have
counsel
image002
Charlene
Courtroom
open
determined
to
advancing
if
Oral Argument will
the
argument
png
Pew
Deputy
to
Judge
Michael
McShane
Please
be necessary
advise
when
in this case
you can
Thank
or not
you
If
United
States
District
405
of
8th
Avenue
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
From
Lea
To
District
431
Ann
Charlene
lake
works
Room
2100
97401
4105
tel
Easton
Charlene
Cc
Court
Oregon
Pew
28541
LEaston
ord uscourts
Pew
ord uscourts
law
works
com
gov
com mailto
jmiddleton jjlslaw
kdiaz
com mailto
aclu
4105
dorsayindianlaw
gov
mailto
mailto
lake
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org
29 20431
com mailto
Charlene
Charlene
law
works
com mailto
Pew
kdiaz
LEaston
lake
law
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
anna
joyce
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
aclu
or us
doj state
or us
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
sheila
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
Date
03 14 2014
Subject
Ms
I
Re
katevts
law
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
com
doj state
potter
multco us mailto
lake
com
sheila
katevts
com mailto
com
kdiaz
TRJohnson
joyce
gov
or org
KJHolm
anna
com
gov
works
jmiddleton jjlslaw
aclu
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts
ord uscourts
com
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org mailto
Pew
multco us
katevts
multco us mailto
katevts
multco us
11 06 AM
6 13 cv
01834
MC
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
to
contact
Pew
have
been
authorized
inquiry on behalf
McShane
next
s question
by all
Judge
of
counsel
McShane
early next
in these
Counsel
week
and
have
cases
for the
parties will
a response
you to
meet
on whether
to
respond
discuss
oral argument
to
your
Judge
is
necessary
to
have
week
Thank
you and
Lea
Ann
Co
Counsel
On
of
have
a great
weekend
Easton
Mar 13
2014
at
4 54 PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge
McShane
asked
Argument on the
to
accommodate
way
Thank
Charlene
Courtroom
United
541
431
contact
the
parties
if
the
parties to
Motions
you don
that
Pew
Deputy
of
to
Judge
District
Michael
McShane
Court
Oregon
4105
tel
28541
29 20431
4105
see if
in this case
you
States
District
me to
Summary Judgment
is
fine
they
If
also
were
you do
Please
still
the
wanting
court
notify
is
the
more
court
Oral
than happy
either
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
attachments
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
IRS
NOTICE
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
Potter
Sheila
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
CC
Katharine
or
Holm
org
Coie
VON TER STEGGE

Kristina
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
lake
Joyce Anna
law works
jmiddleton
com
com
jjlslaw
Thomas
Johnson
aclu
From
kdiaz
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Sent
3 19 2014 12 54 43
Subject
Re 6 13
Sure
new
totally
briefs
get
as of
that
but
April 1
time for his own
cv 01834
if
get
PM
MC
Geiger et al v
Judge
even
McShane
more
Kitzhaber et al
will
hesitant
be reading
about
and
thinking
our suggesting
about
that
two to
he shorten
four
the
preparation
Sheila
On
Mar 19
We
the
have
not
court
counsel
Ms
I
at
we
won
State
been
and
the
to
Misha
file
Rummell
Perkins
a reply
a reply
have
and
would
been
based
on the
the
like
to
contacted
In
Coie
so it
an effort
plaintiffs
that
keep
by at
those
the
here
misaak
would
to
is
Court wishes
offered
to
to
the
do so
Mr
perkinscoie
be premature
synthesize
a proposed
the
to
com
represent
changes
revised
wrote
to
proposed
by
version
the
case
to
Court s question
on whether
of
all
parties
oral argument
is
on for argument
pleadings
will
are preparing
be submitted
amicus
pleadings
It
April 1
2014
on or before
is
order
between
April 1 and
parties would
Counsel
Perriguey
respond
amicus

available
to
discussed
Court s scheduling
parties are all
Lea
by counsel
parties have
our understanding
were
whether
be filing
authorized
for the
necessary
the
Isaak
Pew
have
If
12 49 PM
yet decided
that
for the
Counsel
We
2014
are not
be open
all
as potential
April 23
to
at
advancing
available
of
a time when
argument
April 2 or 7
to
all
a new
which
we
counsel
date
and
if
understand
dates
Ann
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Wednesday
Sheila
To
Katharine
Cc
Lea
Easton
Perkins
Coie
lake
Perkins
Coie
think
replies
Re
it
we
might happen
mailto
VON TER
Ann
Subject
March
potter
doj state
or us
12 41 PM
STEGGE
law
Anna
works
01834
good
sheila
2014
Joyce
6 13 cv
looks
19
but
should say that
MC
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com
Isaak
Geiger et
would
suggest
right upfront
Misha
al v
Kitzhaber
a few edits
and
com
Perkins
link
it
On
Mar 19
earlier
Lea
This
2014
at
12 13 PM
multco us mailto
katevts
Katharine
VON TER
multco us
wrote
Ann
email
works
for me
Thanks
for drafting
it
Coie
et
below
to
Sheila
katevts
kdiaz
STEGGE
aclu
or org
Johnson
Holm
Thomas
Kristina
R
Jr
plaintiffs
won
al
If
in fact
any suggestion
that
oral argument
file
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
v1
url
0A r
County
Suite
503
mailto
u http
Attorney
988
500
Portland
co
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
katevts
Multnomah
multco us k
3D
3D
3D
urldefense
proofpoint
com
3D
0A
0A
On
Wed
Mar 19
LEaston
2014
at
dorsayindianlaw
12 10 PM
Lea
com mailto
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Hi all
First
than
Nevada
I
ve
Ms
I
and
has had
take
or Michigan
the
Second
argument
taken
the
an opportunity
a moment to
the
court
During our call
liberty
of
to
be grateful
drafting
read
that
has sent
on Monday
the
we
another
we
State
live
s Response
and
practice
inquiry about
discussed
sending
to
the
Summary
in Oregon
argument
her a joint
a proposed
joint
respond
rather
and
response
response
Pew
have
Counsel
been
and
have
support
by counsel
parties have
would
been
of
like
to
contacted
plaintiffs
understanding
on the
authorized
for the
necessary
We
everyone
Motions
advancing
and
hope
Judgment
that
those
Plaintiffs
have
April 23rd
argument
at
to
argument
a time when
an hour
as to
the
Lea
Ann
length
pleadings
the
response
That
counsel
if
the
of
to
will
briefs
being
are all
but
time reserved
those
are preparing
amicus
be submitted
amicus
pleadings
It
on or before
the
and
do not
case
if
available
to
counsel
the
do so
will
plan
the
file
hours
course
be open
may not
defer
to
the
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Sent
Wednesday
anna
Ann
KJHolm
works
doj state
sheila
MIsaak
potter
TRJohnson
Subject
Counsel
katevts
6 13 cv
multco us
KJHolm
perkinscoie
doj state
joyce
advancing
for such
Court s preference
or us mailto
MC
MIsaak
sheila
TRJohnson
Geiger et
doj state
aclu
com
or org mailto
lake
perkinscoie
potter
doj state
perkinscoie
al v
or us
com
kdiaz
perkinscoie
com mailto
com mailto
01834
anna
jmiddleton jjlslaw
law
com
or us
com
Kitzhaber
et
works
al
kdiaz
of
prior to
11 07 AM
or us mailto
com mailto
perkinscoie
Re
2014
com mailto
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
com
based
Easton
joyce
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
2014
for argument
Pew
19
to
necessary
Charlene
Lea
in
our
replies in support
parties would
Two
of
to
Charlene
Cc
is
pleadings
is
From
To
parties
April 1
mailto
March
all
oral argument
on for argument
Court wishes
may suffice
of
on whether
order
motions
date
case
to
Court s question
no objections
amicus
reviewed
a new
the
the
have
Court s scheduling
keep
by at
and
to
discussed
aclu
com mailto
or org
lake
law
Wondering
so
was
if
image002
Charlene
United
Deputy
States
of
8th
OR
Phone
541
Lea
Cc
to
431
Ann
Judge
argument
Please
be necessary
advise
when
4105
Pew
Michael
tel
28541
LEaston
ord uscourts
works
gov
gov
lake
Charlene
law
com mailto
Charlene
Pew
works
com mailto
kdiaz
LEaston
lake
com
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
kdiaz
com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
joyce
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
anna
joyce
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
works
aclu
or us
doj state
or us
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
sheila
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
03 14 2014
Subject
Re
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
multco us
katevts
multco us mailto
katevts
multco us
11 06 AM
6 13 cv
01834
MC
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
to
contact
Pew
have
been
authorized
inquiry on behalf
McShane
next
s question
of
by all
Judge
of
counsel
McShane
early next
week
Counsel
and
have
in these
for the
cases
parties will
a response
you to
meet
on whether
to
respond
discuss
oral argument
to
your
Judge
is
necessary
week
Thank
you and
Lea
Ann
Co
Counsel
On
law
com
doj state
potter
katevts
lake
com
sheila
multco us mailto
com mailto
com
or org
perkinscoie
anna
com
gov
gov
law
jmiddleton jjlslaw
aclu
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts
ord uscourts
com
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org mailto
Pew
KJHolm
If
4105
mailto
mailto
com mailto
com mailto
aclu
29 20431
KJHolm
Ms
or not
you
McShane
dorsayindianlaw
jmiddleton jjlslaw
kdiaz
Date
Thank
2100
ord uscourts
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
in this case
you can
Court
Room
Easton
law
com
or org
Oral Argument will
97401
Pew
lake
works
if
the
Oregon
Charlene
Charlene
advancing
District
Avenue
Eugene
To
determined
to
Pew
District
From
open
png
Courtroom
405
you have
counsel
have
a great
weekend
Easton
Mar 13
2014
at
4 54 PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge
McShane
Argument on the
to
accommodate
asked
me to
contact
Summary Judgment
the
parties
if
the
parties to
Motions
you don
see if
in this case
that
is
fine
If
also
they
were
you do
Please
still
the
wanting
court
notify
is
the
to
more
court
have
Oral
than happy
either
way
Thank
you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom
United
District
541
Deputy
States
of
431
to
Judge
District
tel
28541
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
IRS
CIRCULAR
Perkins
NOTICE
law
that
If
is
privileged
you are not
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
be used
that
marketing
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
and
ensure
unless
compliance
including
cannot
any attachments
be used
or recommending
to
expressly indicated
by the
taxpayer
another
party
otherwise
is
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
and
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
ii
addressed
or any attachments
This
received
message
230
we
Coie
promoting
have
4105
information
applicable
avoiding
herein
keep
29 20431
from your system
regulations
contained
McShane
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
Oregon
4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Michael
Court
and
communication
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
please advise
without
privileged
or other
the
by reply email
copying
sender
or disclosing
the
confidential
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
Isaak
Misha
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Katharine
or
Holm
org
Perkins
Coie
H
VON TER STEGGE
Kristina
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
lake
Joyce Anna
law works
jmiddleton
com
com
jjlslaw
Johnson
Thomas
is
State
aclu
From
kdiaz
Perkins
Jr
Coie
Sent
3 19 2014 12 59 11
PM
Subject
RE
MC
We
are not
opposed
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
to
6 13 cv 01834
just sticking
Perkins
727
Coie
Geiger et al v
to
the
Kitzhaber et al
existing date
if
that
the
s preference
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Wednesday
To
Isaak
Cc
Katharine
or org
Sheila
mailto
March
Misha
sheila
2014
Perkins
VON TER
Holm
19
doj state
or us
Coie
STEGGE
Kristina
potter
12 55 PM
Lea
Ann
Perkins
Easton
Coie
Joyce
lake
law
Anna
jmiddleton jjlslaw
works
com
Johnson
com
Thomas
kdiaz
Jr
aclu
Perkins
Coie
Subject
Sure
new
Re
6 13 cv
totally
briefs
get
as of
01834
that
Geiger et
but
April 1
time for his own
MC
if
get
Judge
even
al v
Kitzhaber
McShane
more
will
hesitant
et
al
be reading
about
and
thinking
our suggesting
about
that
two to
he shorten
four
the
preparation
Sheila
On
Mar 19
We
the
have
not
court
counsel
Ms
I
at
we
won
State
been
and
the
to
Misha
file
a reply
Rummell
have
and
would
been
based
on the
the
like
to
contacted
Perkins
a reply
In
Coie
so it
an effort
plaintiffs
that
keep
by at
those
the
here
misaak
would
to
is
Court wishes
offered
to
to
the
do so
Mr
perkinscoie
be premature
synthesize
a proposed
the
to
com
represent
changes
revised
wrote
to
proposed
by
version
the
case
to
Court s question
on whether
of
all
parties
oral argument
is
on for argument
pleadings
will
are preparing
be submitted
amicus
pleadings
It
April 1
2014
on or before
is
order
between
April 1 and
parties would
Counsel
Perriguey
respond
amicus

available
to
discussed
Court s scheduling
parties are all
Lea
by counsel
parties have
our understanding
were
whether
be filing
authorized
for the
necessary
the
Isaak
Pew
have
If
12 49 PM
yet decided
that
for the
Counsel
We
2014
are not
as potential
be open
all
April 23
to
at
advancing
available
of
a time when
argument
April 2 or 7
to
all
a new
which
we
counsel
date
and
if
understand
dates
Ann
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Wednesday
Sheila
To
Katharine
Cc
Lea
Perkins
March
VON TER
Ann
Easton
Coie
lake
mailto
19
potter
doj state
or us
12 41 PM
STEGGE
Joyce
law
sheila
2014
Anna
works
com
jmiddleton jjlslaw
Isaak
Misha
com
Perkins
kdiaz
Coie
aclu
or org
Johnson
Holm
Thomas
Kristina
R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Subject
Re
think
replies
it
we
6 13 cv
looks
01834
good
but
Geiger et
would
should say that
might happen
MC
suggest
right upfront
al v
Kitzhaber
a few edits
and
link
et
al
below
it
to
If
in fact
any suggestion
plaintiffs
that
won
file
oral argument
earlier
Sheila
On
Mar 19
katevts
Lea
2014
at
email
Kate
von
works
Ter
VON TER
multco us
STEGGE
wrote
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
url
for me
Thanks
for drafting
it
Stegge
Senior
0A r
Katharine
katevts
Ann
This
v1
12 13 PM
multco us mailto
County
Suite
503
mailto
u http
Attorney
988
500
Portland
co
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
katevts
Multnomah
multco us k
3D
3D
3D
urldefense
proofpoint
com
3D
0A
0A
On
Wed
Mar 19
LEaston
2014
at
dorsayindianlaw
12 10 PM
Lea
com mailto
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Hi all
First
than
Nevada
I
ve
Ms
I
and
has had
take
or Michigan
the
Second
argument
taken
the
an opportunity
a moment to
the
court
During our call
liberty
of
to
be grateful
drafting
read
that
has sent
on Monday
the
we
another
we
State
live
s Response
and
practice
inquiry about
discussed
sending
to
the
Summary
in Oregon
argument
her a joint
a proposed
joint
respond
rather
and
response
response
Pew
have
Counsel
been
and
have
support
by counsel
parties have
would
been
of
like
to
contacted
plaintiffs
understanding
on the
authorized
for the
necessary
We
everyone
Motions
advancing
and
hope
Judgment
that
those
have
amicus
Court s scheduling
Plaintiffs
have
reviewed

April 23rd
argument
argument
as to
the
Lea
Ann
at
to
date
an hour
length
of
if
the
the
case
to
Court s question
of
all
parties
oral argument
is
on for argument

no objections
pleadings
on whether
to
will
those
are preparing
amicus
be submitted
amicus
pleadings
It
on or before
pleadings
is
in
our
April 1
2014
based
order
the
motions
a time when
a new
keep
by at
and
to
discussed
response
That
counsel
the
briefs
being
are all
the
time reserved
but
do not
case
available
Court wishes
may suffice
and
to
counsel
for argument
if
the
do so
will
Two
of
plan
the
to
file
replies in support
parties would
hours
course
may not
defer
to
be open
to
necessary
the
of
prior to
advancing
for such
Court s preference
From
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Sent
Wednesday
To
Lea
Cc
anna
Ann
March
KJHolm
works
doj state
sheila
multco us mailto
potter
Subject
doj state
Re
katevts
or us mailto
01834
MC
kdiaz
sheila
TRJohnson
aclu
com
MIsaak
Geiger et
doj state
or org mailto
lake
law
perkinscoie
potter
works
kdiaz
aclu
or org
com mailto
lake
law
com
doj state
perkinscoie
al v
or us
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
com mailto
6 13 cv
joyce
multco us
KJHolm
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
anna
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com mailto
MIsaak
TRJohnson
11 07 AM
or us mailto
com mailto
perkinscoie
com
2014
Easton
joyce
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
19
or us
com
Kitzhaber
et
al
Counsel
Wondering
so
was
if
image002
Charlene
United
District
Deputy
of
8th
OR
Phone
541
Lea
To
Cc
to
431
Ann
Judge
argument
Please
be necessary
advise
when
Room
4105
Michael
Pew
28541
LEaston
works
gov
gov
lake
Charlene
law
com mailto
Charlene
Pew
works
com mailto
kdiaz
LEaston
lake
com
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
joyce
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
anna
joyce
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
works
kdiaz
aclu
or us
doj state
or us
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
sheila
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
03 14 2014
Re
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
multco us
katevts
multco us mailto
katevts
multco us
11 06 AM
6 13 cv
01834
MC
Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
to
contact
Pew
have
been
authorized
inquiry on behalf
McShane
next
law
com
doj state
potter
katevts
lake
com
sheila
multco us mailto
com mailto
com
or org
perkinscoie
anna
com
gov
gov
law
jmiddleton jjlslaw
aclu
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts
ord uscourts
com
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org mailto
Pew
KJHolm
Ms
If
4105
mailto
mailto
com mailto
com mailto
aclu
29 20431
KJHolm
Subject
or not
you
McShane
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts
jmiddleton jjlslaw
kdiaz
Date
Thank
2100
tel
Easton
jmiddleton jjlslaw
katevts
in this case
you can
Court
ord uscourts
law
com
or org
Oral Argument will
97401
Pew
lake
works
if
the
Oregon
Charlene
Charlene
advancing
District
Avenue
Eugene
From
determined
to
Pew
States
open
png
Courtroom
405
you have
counsel
s question
week
of
by all
Judge
of
McShane
early next
week
counsel
Counsel
and
have
in these
for the
cases
parties will
a response
on whether
meet
you to
to
respond
discuss
oral argument
to
your
Judge
is
necessary
Thank
you and
Lea
Ann
Co
Counsel
On
have
a great
weekend
Easton
Mar 13
2014
at
4 54 PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge
McShane
asked
Argument on the
to
accommodate
way
Thank
the
Deputy
States
District
of
431
parties
if
to
Michael
Judge
District
tel
28541
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
IRS
CIRCULAR
Perkins
NOTICE
have
230
that
is
fine
were
you do
also
still
the
Please
wanting
court
notify
is
the
to
more
have
Oral
than happy
court
either
McShane
4105
NOTICE
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
privileged
you are not
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
be used
that
marketing
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
and
ensure
unless
compliance
including
cannot
any attachments
be used
or recommending
to
expressly indicated
by the
taxpayer
another
party
otherwise
is
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
and
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
ii
addressed
or any attachments
This
received
message
keep
we
Coie
promoting
herein
29 20431
avoiding
they
If
from your system
regulations
contained
you don
see if
in this case
Court
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
parties to
Oregon
4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
the
Motions
Pew
Charlene
541
contact
you
Courtroom
United
me to
Summary Judgment
and
communication
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
please advise
without
privileged
or other
the
by reply email
copying
sender
or disclosing
the
confidential
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter Sheila
To
Isaak
CC
Misha
H
Perkins
Coie
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
jmiddleton
com
jjlslaw
Lea Ann Easton Joyce Anna
kdiaz
law works com Johnson
lake
Sent
3 19 2014 2 25 42
Subject
RE
6 13 cv 01834
PM
MC
aclu or org
Holm
Thomas R
Jr
Geiger et
al
Kristina
Perkins
Coie
Perkins Coie
Kitzhaber et
al
I m not insisting on April 23 so much as I m hesitating over the wording

One thing to keep in mind is
that
if we do move it up
our office will need t o let the press know
since it s been widely reported as an
April 23 argument a couple times now
Not much value to an open process if we slip into court at an
unexpected time
Suggested adjustment to the last paragraph below

Also see the highlighted
addition
that the possible amici are aligned with the plaintiffs so far
so that the judge isn t
briefs
defending
the ban
Original Message
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
mailto misaak perkinscoie com
From
Sent
Wednesday
March 19
2014 12 59 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna
jmiddleton jjlslaw com
Kristina J
Perkins Coie
lake law works com
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Subject
We
RE
6 13 cv
are not opposed
Misha
PHONE
Isaak
we should mention
expecting amicus
MC Geiger et al v
to just sticking
Perkins
503 727 2086
01834
Coie LLP
to the
Kitzhaber
existing date
kdiaz
Coie
aclu
et al
if
that
is the State
s preference
or org
Holm
Original
Message
From Potter
Sent
Sheila
Wednesday
To
Isaak
Misha
Cc
Katharine
mailto sheila
March
19
Perkins
VON TER
2014
potter
doj state or us
12 55 PM
Coie
STEGGE
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna
jmiddleton jjlslaw com mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com

kdiaz aclu or o rg mailto kdiaz aclu or org
Kristina J
Perkins Coie
lake law works com mailto lake law works com
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Coie
Subject
Re
Sure
totally
of April 1
I
6 13 cv
01834
MC Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber
Holm
Perkins
et al
get that
but if Judge M cShane will be reading and thinking about two to four new briefs as
get even more hesitant about our suggesting that he shorten the time for his own preparation
Sheila
On Mar 19
2014
at 12 49 PM
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
misaak perkinscoie com mailto misaak perkinscoie com
Coie
wrote
We have not yet decided whether to file a reply

so it would be premature
we won t be filing a reply
In an effort to synthesize the changes proposed
Rummell plaintiffs
here is a proposed revised version
Ms
Pew
to represent to the court that

by counsel fo
r the State and the
have been authorized by counsel
oral argument
to
is necessary
respond
and
to
your inquiry
on
behalf of all
would like to keep
parties
the
case
We have been contacted

by at least two attorneys who
the plaintiffs
position
It is our understanding that
April 1
2014
based on the Court s scheduling order
Counsel
for the
parties
have discussed
the
Court
question
on wheth
er
on for argument
are preparing
those amicus
amicus pleadings
both in support of
pleadings will be submitted on or before
If the Court wishes to move argument up to an earlier date

in light of the parties
positions
counsel
Counsel are not all ava ilable on April 2 or 7
which we understand were offered
would be open to doing so
Perriguey as potential dates
But if there are other dates that would be convenient
for the Court
to Mr
counsel
would be happy to check
for argument on April 23
Lea
their schedules
and advise
Ms
Ann
Misha
Misha
PHONE
Isaak
Perkins
Coie
LLP
503 727 2086
Original Message
From
Potter Sheila
mailto sheila
potter
doj state
or us
Pew
And
of course
we all
re
main available
Sent
Wednesday
March
19
To
Katharine
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
2014
VON TER
12 41 PM
STEGGE
Joyce Anna
or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org

Isaak
Misha
Perkins
works com
Subject
Re
6 13 cv
01834
jmiddleton jjlslaw com mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw
com
Holm
Coie
com mailto lake
Kristina J
Perkins
Johnson
Thomas R
MC Geiger et al v
I think it looks good but would suggest

should say that right upfront and link it
Kitzhaber
Coie
Jr
lake law works

Perkins Coie
kdiaz
aclu
law
et al
a few edits
below
If in fact plaintiffs won t file replies
to any suggestion that oral argument might happen earlier
we
Sheila
On Mar 19
2014
at 12 13 PM
katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us mailto katevts
Lea
Ann
This
email works for me
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
Thanks
for drafting it
multco us 3cmailto
atevts
multco us
wrote
Senior
Assistant
County Attorney
501 SE Hawthorne
503
988 3138
Suite
500
Multnomah
Portland
503 988 3377
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
katevts
mailto katevts co multnomah or us multco us https
urldefense proofpoint com v1 url u http
o us k 06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ 3D 3D 0A r QBulutk4JWKz9MUdVmlht5kPe0PL8Kr4L1jyGC05Mpg
3D 0A m 4
3D 0A s 22200c1adf694074835b5eb13531f86fcc7f5c51eeb5146bee841cd6dae1bf85
l6iSRvmjTvdhrQzNQwAppS2HGmowIB88M
multc
vU505fqOd
m
ailto katevts
3cmailto katevts co multnomah or us 3emultco us 3chttps
urldefense proofpoint com v1 url u
http
multco us k 06 2F1 2Fwq
qQY9VYFo4IVhphQ 3D 3D 0A r QBulutk4JWKz9MUdVmlht5kPe0PL8Kr4L1jyGC05Mpg
3D 0A
3D 0A s 22200c1adf694074835b5eb13531f86fcc7f5c51eeb5146bee841c
d6dae1bf85
On Wed
Mar 19
2014 at 12 10 PM
Lea Ann Easton
wrote
Hi all
com mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3cmailto
First
I hope
everyone has had an opportunity to read the State s Response to the Summa ry Judgment
Motions and take a moment to be
grateful that we live and practice in Oregon rather than Nevada or Michigan
Second
the court has sent
During our call on Monday
we discussed
sending
another inquiry about argument and advancing the argument
her a joint response and I ve taken the liberty of drafting a proposed joint response
Ms
Pew
I have been authorized by counsel to respond to your inquiry on behalf of all parties
Counsel for the
parties have discussed
the Court s question o n whether oral argument is necessary and would like to keep
case on for argument
the

by at least two attorneys who are preparing amicus pleadings in support of
plaintiffs and have no objections
to those amicus pleadings
It is ou r understanding that those amicus
pleadings will be submitted on or before April 1
2014 based on the Court s scheduling order
Plaintiffs have reviewed the response briefs and do not plan to file replies in support of their summary
judgment motions
That being the case
if the Court has time available prior to April 23rd at a time when
counsel
are all available
the parties would be open to advancing argument to a new date
if the Court
wishes to do so
Two hours may not necessary for such argument
a n hour may suffice
but counsel will
course defer to the Court s preference as to the length of time reserved for argument
Lea
of
Ann
From
Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov mailto Charlene Pew ord
ilto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov
mailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov mailto Charlene
gov 3cmailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov 3e
uscourts
gov
mailto Charlene
Pew ord uscourts
gov
Pew ord u
mailto Charlene
scourts
gov
3cma
Pew ord uscourts
Sent
To
Cc
anna
Wednesday
March 19
2014 11 07
AM
Lea Ann Easton
joyce
doj state or us mailto anna
joyce
doj state or us mailto anna joyce
doj state or us 3cmailto
anna
joyce doj state or us

jmiddleton jjlslaw com mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com 3cmailto jmi ddleton jjlsl
aw com
katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us mailto katevts multco us 3cmailto katevts multco us
kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3cmailto kdiaz aclu or org
KJHolm perkinscoie com mailto KJHolm
perkinscoie com mailto KJHolm perkinscoie com 3cmailto KJHolm perkinsco
ie com
lake law works com mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com 3cmailto lake law
works com
MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkin
scoie com 3cmailto MIsaak perkinsco
ie com
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3cma
ilto sheila potter doj state or us
TRJohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie com mailto
TRJohnson perkinscoie com 3cmailto TRJohns
on perkinscoie com
Subject
Re
6 13 cv
01834
MC Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber
et al
Counsel
Wondering
if you have determined if Oral Argument will be necessary in this case
counsel open to advancing the argument
Please advise when you can
Thank you
image002
Charlene
Courtroom
United
png
Pew
Deputy to Judge
States
Michael
District Court
McShane
or not
If
so
was
District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
Eugene
Phone
From
OR
Room 2100
97401
541
431 4105
tel
28541
29 20431
4105
Lea Ann Easton

mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
To
Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov mailto Charlene
mailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov 3e
ailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov
com mailto LEaston
Pew ord uscourts
gov
Pew ord uscourts
gov
dorsayindianlaw
mailto Charlene
mailto Charlene
com 3cmailto
Pew ord uscourts

Pew ord uscourts
gov
gov
3c
3
Cc
mailto lake law works com 3cmailto lake law
lake law works com mailto lake law works com mailto lake law works com 3cmailto lake law
works com 3e
works com
mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com 3cmailto jmiddleton jjl
slaw com 3e
jmiddleton jjlslaw com mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com 3cmailto jmiddleton jjls
law com
kdiaz aclu
mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3cmailto kdiaz aclu
cm
or
org
3e
KJHolm
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
or
org
mailto kdiaz
com mailto KJHolm
aclu
or
org
perkinscoie
mailto kdiaz
com
mailto
aclu
KJH
or
org
3cmailto
kdiaz
olm perkinscoie
aclu
or
org
com 3cmailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com 3e
KJHolm perkinscoie com mailto KJHolm perkinscoie com mailto KJHolm perkinscoie com 3cmailto KJHolm perkinsc
oie com
MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com
mailto MIsaak perkinscoi
e com 3cmailto MIsaak perkins
coie com 3e
MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3cmailto MIsaak perkinsc
oie com
TRJohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie com
3cmailto TRJoh
nson perkinscoie com 3e
com mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie
com 3cmailto TRJohn
son perkinscoie com
anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us
mailto anna joyce do
j state or us 3cmailto an
na joyce doj state or us 3e
anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3cmailto ann
a joyce doj state or us
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or
us
mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3c
mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3cm
ailto sheila potter doj state or us
katevts multco us mail to katevts multco us
mailto katevts multco us 3cmailto katevts multco us 3e
katevts
Date
multco us mailto katevts
multco us 3cmailto
katevts
multco us
03 14 2014 11 06 AM
Subject
Re
6 13 cv
01834
MC Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber
et al
Ms Pew
have
been
authorized
behalf of Judge McShane

week and have a response
by all
of counsel
in these cases
to contact
you to respond
Counsel for the parties will meet to discuss Judge

on whether oral argument is necessary next week
to your inquiry on
cShane
s question
early next
Thank
you and have a
Lea
Ann
Co
Counsel
great
weekend
Easton
for
Geiger
On Mar 13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM

wrote
Pew ord uscourts
gov
Pew ord uscourts
gov
mailto Charlene
mailto Charlene
Pew ord uscourts

Pew ord uscourts
gov
gov
3c
3cm
Counsel
Judge McShane asked me to contact the parties to see if they were still
wanting to have Oral Argument on
the Summary Judgment Motions in this case
If you do
the court is more than happy to accommodate
the
parties
if you don t that is fine also
Please notify the court either way
Thank you
Charlene
Courtroom
United
Deputy to Judge
States
District
541
Pew
Michael
McShane
District Court
of Oregon
431 4105 tel
28541
29 20431
4105
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
it
appears
e mail
system
NOTICE
may contain information
from
the
keep
context
or
that is privileged
you have
confidential
otherwise
the contents
that
confidential
or
otherwise exempt from
disclosure
under
applicable
law
If
you
are
not
the
addressee
or

please advise me immediately by reply
from your
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and IRS regulations
we inform
you that
is not intended or written by Perki ns Coie LLP to be used
and cannot be used by
the taxpayer
for the purpose of
i
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the
Internal Revenue Code or
ii
promoting
to another party any transaction or
or any attachments
matter addressed herein
NOTICE
This communication
information
If
it in error
please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete t
he message
without copying or disclosing the contents
Thank you
you have received

and any attachments
From
Johnson
To
Potter
CC
Katharine
or
org
R Jr Perkins Coie
H Isaak Misha Perkins Coie
VON TER STEGGE Lea Ann Easton
Thomas
Holm
Kristina
Sent
3 19 2014 2 27 01
Subject
RE
good
This looks
Perkins Coie
lake
Joyce Anna
law works
jmiddleton
jjlslaw
com
kdiaz
com
PM
6 13 cv 01834
MC
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
to us
Thomas R Johnson
1120
aclu
Sheila
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
Potter
Isaak
Cc
Katharine
Subject
com
mailto sheila
March 19
Misha
Perkins
RE 6 13 cv
we do move
it
doj state or us
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna
com Johnson Thomas R

01834 MC Geiger et al v Kitzhaber
law works
lake
m not insisting
potter
2014 2 26 PM
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Perkins
if
Sheila
Wednesday
To
perkinscoie
on April 23 so much as
up
our
argument a couple times
oce
now Not much
et
Perkins
com
kdiaz
One
over the wording
the press
let
jjlslaw
aclu or
org
Holm
Kristina J
Coie
al
m hesitating
need to
will
jmiddleton
Jr
know
since
value to an open process
if
it
thing
to keep in
mind
is
that
been widelyreported as an April 23
we
slip into courtat
an unexpected
time
Suggested adjustment to the last paragraph

that the possible amici are aligned
defending
Sent
To
Isaak
Misha Perkins Coie
Potter Sheila
Cc Katharine
Jr
March 19
mailto
2014 12 59
so far so that the judge isnt expecting amicus briefs
misaak
perkinscoie
com
PM
VON TER STEGGE

Holm
aclu or org
RE 6 13
Kristina
Lea
Ann
Easton
Perkins Coie
Joyce
Anna
jmiddleton
law works
lake
cv 01834
MC
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber et
are not opposed to just sticking to the existing date
Misha Isaak
if
com
jjlslaw
com
Johnson Thomas
Original
From
Perkins Coie LLP
Sent
Message
Potter Sheila
Wednesday
Isaak
March 19
2014 12 55
Misha Perkins Coie
doj state or
PM
al
that is the State s preference
PHONE 503 727 2086
To
should mention
Perkins Coie
Subject
We
we
Message
Wednesday
kdiaz
with the plaintis
Also see the highlighted addition
the ban
Original
From
below
us
Cc Katharine
kdiaz
Jr
VON TER STEGGE

Holm
aclu or org
Ann
Lea
Kristina
Easton
Joyce
Perkins Coie
Anna
jmiddleton
law works
lake
com
jjlslaw
com
Johnson Thomas
Perkins Coie
Sure
new
totally
but
get that
briefs as of April
for his
MC
Re 6 13 cv 01834
Subject
own
Geiger et
Judge McShane
if
more
get even
al
Kitzhaber et
will
al
be reading and thinking
hesitant about our suggesting
that
about two
he
short
to four
en the time
preparation
Sheila
On Mar 19 2014
at
PM
12 49
Misha
Isaak
misaak
Perkins Coie
perkinscoie
com
wrote
We
have not yet decided whether to
court that
counsel
we won
be
filing
reply
In
the State and the Rummell
for
a reply so it would be premature to repres ent

an effort to synthesize the changes propos ed by
to the
file
here
plaintiffs
is
a proposed
revised version
Ms Pew
I
have been authorized by counsel to respond
Counsel
for
necessary and would
We
like to
have been contacted
keep the case on
by
in support of the plaintiffs
It
2014
the Court wishes to move argument
counsel would be open to doing so

understand were offered to
for
on
behalf
of all parti
es
Mr
is
is
argument
at least two attorneys
position
be submitted on or before April 1
If
to your inquiry
discussed the Court s question on whether oral argument
the parties have
who
are preparing amicus pleadings
both
our understanding that those amicus pleadings
will
up
to
an
earlier
Counsel are not
all
date
available
But
on
if
April
or
positions
7 which we
there are other
ates that
would be convenient for the Court counsel would be happy to check their schedules and
advise Ms Pew
And of course we all remain available for argument on April 23
Lea
Ann
Misha
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
PHONE 503 727 2086
Original
From
Sent
To
Message
Potter Sheila
Wednesday
Katharine
Perkins Coie
March 19
2014 12 41
doj state or
us
PM
VON TER STEGGE
Cc Lea Ann Easton

J
lake
Joyce
Anna
law works
jmiddleton
com
jjlslaw
com
kdiaz
Misha Perkins Coie
Isaak
aclu or org
Holm
Johnson Thomas
Kristina
Jr
Perkins Coie
Re 6 13 cv 01834
Subject
think
it
looks good but
MC
Geiger et
al
would suggest a few
Kitzhaber et
edits
below
al
If
in fact plaintiffs
w on
t file
replies
we
should say that right upfront and link
happen
any suggestion
to
it
that oral
argument might
earlier
Sheila
On Mar 19 2014
multco us
katevts
Lea
at
PM
12 13
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
multco us
mailto katevts
wrote
Ann
This email works
for
me Thanks
for drafting
it
Kate von Ter Stegge
501 SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah County Attorney
Portland
OR 97214
fax
co multnomah or us
mailto katevts
multco us
https
urldefense
url u http
multco us k 06
2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
3D
0A r QBulutk4JWKz9MUdVmlht5kPe0PL8Kr4L1jyGC05Mpg
3D 0A
3D 0A
com
3D
v1
proofpoint
22200c1adf694074835b5eb13531f86fcc7f5c51eeb5146bee841cd6dae1bf85
On Wed Mar 19 2014

LEaston
Hi
at
PM
12 10
com
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
Ann
Easton
mailto LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
wrote
all
First
hope everyone has had an opportunity
Judgment Motions and take a moment

than Nevada
advancing
Second
or Michigan
the argument
response and
liberty
we
live
and
S ummary
to the
practice
in
Oregon
the court has sent another inquiry about argumen
During our
ve taken the
Response
to read the State s
to be grateful that
call
on Monday
of drafting
we
a proposed
discussed
joint
sending her a
rather
t
and
joint
response
Ms Pew
I
Counsel
for
the parties have
necessary and would
We
like to
have been contacted
support
of plaintiffs
to your inquiry
on
behalf
of all parti
es

keep the case on
by
for
argument
and have no
objections
understanding that those amicus pleadings
to those
will
is
who
amicus pleadings
It
is
in
our
201 4 based
on the Court s scheduling order

Plaintiffs
have reviewed the response briefs and do not plan to
file
replies in
sup
port of their
summary judgment motions That being the case

the Court has time available prior to April
23rd at a time when counsel are all available the parties would be open to advancing
the Court wishes to do so Two hours may not necessary for such
argument
an hour may suffice
but counsel will of course defer to the Court s pr eference as
if
if
to the length of time reserved for
Lea
Ann
From
Charlene Pew
Pew
mailto Charlene
Sent
To
argument
Wednesday
Ann
Lea
Cc anna
katevts
ord uscourts gov
March 19
mailto Charlene
Pew
mailto Charlene
2014 11 07
Pew
doj state or
jjlslaw
com
multco us
TRJohnson
Subject
ord uscourts gov
AM
us
mailto
anna
mailto jmiddleton
joyce
jjlslaw
multco us
mailto katevts
doj state or
doj state or
us
com
perkinscoie
Re 6 13 cv 01834

mailto
MC
TRJohnson
Geiger et
al
us
com
kdiaz
aclu or org mailto kdiaz
KJHolm perkinscoie com mailto KJHolm perkinscoie com

works com mailto lake law works com
MIsaak
perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie com
sheila potter
ord uscourts gov
Easton
joyce
jmiddleton
ord uscourts gov
lake
doj state or
perkinscoie
Kitzhaber et
aclu or org
law
us
com
al
Counsel
Wondering
so
if
you have determined
was counsel open
to advancing
if
Oral Argument
the argument
will
Please
be necessary in this case or

advise
when you can
Thank y ou
image002 png
Charlene Pew
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue

Eugene
Phone
From
LEaston
To
431 4105
Lea
Ann
tel
Charlene Pew
lake
28541
29
20431 4105
Easton
dorsayindianlaw
Charlene Pew
Cc
works com
Room 2100
OR 97401
541
com
mailto LEaston
ord uscourts gov
ord uscourts gov

law works
mailto lake
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto Charlene
mailto Charlene
mailto lake
law works
com
Pew
law works
Pew
com
ord uscourts gov
ord uscourts gov
com
lake
law
not
If
jmiddleton
jjlslaw
jmiddleton
or org
jjlslaw
com
com
mailto kdiaz
KJHolm
KJHolm
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jmiddleton
aclu or org
kdiaz
jjlslaw
jjlslaw
com
com
aclu or org
kdiaz
aclu
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org
com mailto KJHolm perkinscoie com

perkinscoie com mailto KJHolm
perkinscoie com
MIsaak
perkinscoie com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
perkinscoie
anna
joyce
doj state or
us
anna
joyce
doj state or
us mailto anna joyce doj state or us

us mailto sheila potter doj state or us
sheila potter
doj state or
sheila potter
doj state or
mailto
us
anna
multco us
katevts
03
Date
doj state or
katevts
joyce
us
doj state or
us
multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
AM
01834 MC
14 2014 11 06
Re 6 13 cv
Subject
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber et
al
Ms Pew
I
have been authorized by
inquiry
on
McShane
behalf
of
all
of
counsel in these cases to contact
Judge McShane
Counsel
for
the parties
will
you
meet
to respond
to discuss
to your
Judge
s question early next week and have a response on whether oral argument
is
necessary next week
Thank you and have a

Lea
Ann
Co
Counsel
great
weekend
Easton
for
Geiger
On Mar 13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene Pew
ord uscourts gov
mailto Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene Pew
ord uscourts gov
mailto Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane asked me to contact the parties to see if they were still wanting to have Oral
Argument on the Summary Judgment Motions in this case
If you do
the court is more than
happy
way
to
accommodate the
parties
if
you don
that is fine also
Thank you
Charlene Pew
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
541
Oregon
431 4105
tel
28541
CONFIDENTIALITY
29
NOTICE
20431 4105
Please
notify the court either
This e mail
may

otherwise that you have received
disclosure
e mail keep the contents
If
is privileged
confidential
or
it
this e mail in error please advise
confidential
and immediately
delete the
exempt from
or otherwise
appears from the
context
me immediately b
or
y reply
message and any
attachments from your system
IRS
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance

we inform you that unless expressly indicated
regulations
contained
in this
with Treasury Department and IRS

otherwise
any
federal
ta x advice
communication including any attachments is not intended or written by

and cannot be used by the taxpayer for the purpose of i

avoiding
ii
penalties that
promoting
may
be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue
Cod e
or
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein or any attachments
NOTICE
have
This communication
received
it
in error
may
contain privileged
please advise the sender
message and any attachments without copying
by
or other confidential information
or disclosing
If
you
and immediately de lete the

the contents
Thank you
reply email
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Johnson
CC
Katharine
Kristina
R Jr Perkins Coie Potter Sheila H

VON TER STEGGE Joyce Anna jmiddleton
Thomas
Perkins Coie
Sent
3 19 2014 2 36 16
Subject
RE
lake
law works
Isaak
Misha
jjlslaw
com
Perkins Coie
Holm
kdiaz
aclu or org
kdiaz
aclu or
org
Holm
Kristina J
kdiaz
aclu or
org
Holm
Kristina J
com
PM
MC
6 13 cv 01834
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
All
send the email as amended by
will
all
to
Ms Pew
Lea Ann
From
To
Thomas R
Johnson
Sent
Wednesday
Jr
March 19
Perkins
Coie
mailto
TRJohnson

VON TER STEGGE Lea Ann Easton Joyce Anna
Perkins Coie
lake
law works com
Potter
Cc
good
This looks
jmiddleton
com
jjlslaw
to us
Thomas R Johnson
com
Sheila
Katharine
1120
perkinscoie
2014 2 27 PM
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
perkinscoie
Potter
To
Isaak
Cc
Katharine
Subject
if
mailto sheila
March 19
Misha
Perkins
RE 6 13 cv
we do move
it
doj state or us
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna jmiddleton

law works
lake
m not insisting
potter
2014 2 26 PM
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Perkins
Sheila
Wednesday
com
up
our
oce
will
et
Perkins
One
over the wording
the press
let
com
jjlslaw
Coie
al
m hesitating
need to
now Not much
Jr
know
since
if
it
thing
to keep in
mind
is
that
we
slip into courtat
an unexpected
time

defending
Sent
To
Isaak
Misha Perkins Coie
Wednesday
Cc Katharine
Jr
we
should mention
Message
Potter Sheila
kdiaz
with the plaintis
the ban
Original
From
below
March 19
2014 12 59
misaak
perkinscoie
com
PM
VON TER STEGGE
aclu or org
Perkins Coie
mailto
Holm
Kristina
Lea
Ann
Easton
Perkins Coie
Joyce
lake
Anna
jmiddleton
law works
com
jjlslaw
com
Johnson Thomas
RE 6 13
Subject
We
MC
cv 01834
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber et
if
al
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
PHONE 503 727 2086
Message
Original
From
Potter Sheila
doj state or
us
PM
Wednesday March 19 2014 12 55

Misha Perkins Coie
Sent
To
Isaak
Cc Katharine
kdiaz
Jr
VON TER STEGGE

Holm
aclu or org
Kristina
Ann
Lea
Easton
Joyce
Perkins Coie
lake
Anna
jmiddleton
law works
com
jjlslaw
com
Johnson Thomas
Perkins Coie
Sure
new
totally
but
get that
briefs as of April
for his
MC
Re 6 13 cv 01834
Subject
own
Geiger et
al
Judge McShane
if
get even
more
Kitzhaber et
will
al
that
about two
he
short
to four
en the time
preparation
Sheila
On Mar 19 2014
at
PM
12 49
Misha
Isaak
misaak
Perkins Coie
perkinscoie
com
wrote
We
court that
counsel
we won
for
be
filing
reply

file
In
here
plaintiffs
is
a proposed
to the
revised version
Ms Pew
I
Counsel
for
necessary and would
We
like to
have been contacted
keep the case on
by
It
2014

for
on
behalf
of all parti
es
Mr
is
is
argument
position
If
to your inquiry
the parties have
who

up
to
an
earlier
Counsel are not
all
date
available
But
on
if
April
or
positions
7 which we
there are other
ates that
advise Ms Pew
Lea
Ann
Misha
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
PHONE 503 727 2086
both
will
Original
From
Sent
To
Message
Potter Sheila
Wednesday
Katharine
March 19
Perkins Coie
doj state or
us
PM
2014 12 41
VON TER STEGGE
Cc Lea Ann Easton

J
Anna
Joyce
law works
lake
jmiddleton
com
jjlslaw
com
kdiaz
Holm
aclu or org
Misha Perkins Coie
Isaak
Johnson Thomas
Kristina
Jr
Perkins Coie
Re 6 13 cv 01834
Subject
think
we
it
looks good but
MC
Geiger et
would suggest a few
happen
al
to
it
Kitzhaber et
edits
below
al
If
any suggestion
w on
in fact plaintiffs
that oral
t file
replies
argument might
earlier
Sheila
On Mar 19 2014
multco us
katevts
Lea
at
12 13
PM
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
multco us
mailto katevts
wrote
Ann
This email works
for
me Thanks
for drafting
it
Kate von Ter Stegge
501 SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
OR 97214
fax
co multnomah or us
mailto katevts
multco us
https
urldefense
url u http
multco us k 06
3D
3D 0A
3D 0A
v1
proofpoint
com
3D
On Wed Mar 19 2014

LEaston
Hi
at
dorsayindianlaw
12 10
com
PM
Lea
Ann
Easton
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
all
First

than Nevada
advancing
or Michigan
the argument
Second
to read the State s
to be grateful that
we
live
Response
and
practice
to the
in
S ummary
Oregon
During our
call
on Monday
we
discussed
sending her a
joint
rather
t
and
response and
ve taken the
liberty
a proposed
of drafting
response
joint
Ms Pew
I
Counsel
necessary and would
We
like to
have been contacted
support
of plaintiffs
to your inquiry
on
behalf
of all parti
es
the parties have
for
keep the case on
by
for
argument
who
and have no
objections
to those
will
is
amicus pleadings
It
is
in
our
201 4 based

Plaintiffs
file
replies in
sup
port of their

argument
an hour may suffice
if
if
Lea
Ann
From
Charlene Pew
mailto Charlene
Sent
To
argument
Pew
Wednesday
Ann
Lea
Cc anna
katevts
ord uscourts gov
March 19
mailto Charlene
mailto Charlene
2014 11 07
Pew
Pew
doj state or
jjlslaw
com
multco us
TRJohnson
Subject
ord uscourts gov
AM
us
mailto
anna
mailto jmiddleton
mailto katevts
joyce
jjlslaw
multco us
doj state or
doj state or
us
com
perkinscoie
Re 6 13 cv 01834

mailto
MC
TRJohnson
Geiger et
al
us
com
kdiaz

MIsaak
perkinscoie com
sheila potter
ord uscourts gov
Easton
joyce
jmiddleton
ord uscourts gov
lake
doj state or
perkinscoie
Kitzhaber et
aclu or org
law
us
com
al
Counsel
Wondering
so
if
you have determined
was counsel open
to advancing
if
Oral Argument
the argument
will
Please
image002 png
Charlene Pew
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue

Eugene
Phone
Room 2100
OR 97401
541
431 4105
tel
28541
29
20431 4105

advise
when you can
not
Thank y ou
If
From
Ann
Lea
LEaston
Easton
Charlene Pew
To
Charlene Pew
Cc
works com
jjlslaw
jjlslaw
com
mailto lake
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto Charlene
mailto Charlene
Pew
law works
Pew
ord uscourts gov
ord uscourts gov
com
lake
law
com
law works
com
com
mailto kdiaz
KJHolm
KJHolm
ord uscourts gov
law works
mailto lake
jmiddleton
mailto LEaston
ord uscourts gov
lake
jmiddleton
or org
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jmiddleton
aclu or org
kdiaz
jjlslaw
jjlslaw
com
com
aclu or org
kdiaz
aclu
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org

perkinscoie com
MIsaak
perkinscoie com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
perkinscoie
anna
joyce
doj state or
us
anna
joyce
doj state or

sheila potter
doj state or
sheila potter
doj state or
mailto
us
multco us
katevts
03
Date
joyce
doj state or
katevts
anna
us
doj state or
us
multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
AM
01834 MC
14 2014 11 06
Re 6 13 cv
Subject
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber et
al
Ms Pew
I
inquiry
on
McShane
behalf
of
all
of
Judge McShane
Counsel
for
the parties
will
you
meet
to respond
to discuss
to your
Judge
is
necessary next week

Lea
Ann
Co
Counsel
great
weekend
Easton
for
Geiger
On Mar 13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene Pew
ord uscourts gov
mailto Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene Pew
ord uscourts gov
mailto Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
If you do
happy
way
to
accommodate the
parties
if
you don
that is fine also
Please
Thank you
Charlene Pew
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
541
Oregon
431 4105
tel
28541
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
29
20431 4105
NOTICE

disclosure
If
is privileged
confidential
or
it
confidential
and immediately
delete the
exempt from
or otherwise
appears from the
context
me immediately b
or
y reply
message and any
IRS

regulations
contained
in this

otherwise
any
federal
ta x advice


avoiding
ii
penalties that
promoting
may
Cod e
or
NOTICE
have
This communication
received
it
in error
may
contain privileged
by
or disclosing
If
you

the contents
Thank you
reply email
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Johnson
CC
Katharine
Kristina

VON TER STEGGE Joyce Anna jmiddleton
Thomas
Perkins Coie
Sent
3 19 2014 2 36 16
Subject
RE
lake
law works
Isaak
Misha
jjlslaw
com
Perkins Coie
Holm
kdiaz
aclu or org
kdiaz
aclu or
org
Holm
Kristina J
kdiaz
aclu or
org
Holm
Kristina J
com
PM
MC
6 13 cv 01834
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
All
send the email as amended by
will
all
to
Ms Pew
Lea Ann
From
To
Thomas R
Johnson
Sent
Wednesday
Jr
March 19
Perkins
Coie
mailto
TRJohnson

VON TER STEGGE Lea Ann Easton Joyce Anna
Perkins Coie
lake
law works com
Potter
Cc
good
This looks
jmiddleton
com
jjlslaw
to us
Thomas R Johnson
com
Sheila
Katharine
1120
perkinscoie
2014 2 27 PM
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
perkinscoie
Potter
To
Isaak
Cc
Katharine
Subject
if
mailto sheila
March 19
Misha
Perkins
RE 6 13 cv
we do move
it
doj state or us
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna jmiddleton

law works
lake
m not insisting
potter
2014 2 26 PM
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Perkins
Sheila
Wednesday
com
up
our
oce
will
et
Perkins
One
over the wording
the press
let
com
jjlslaw
Coie
al
m hesitating
need to
now Not much
Jr
know
since
if
it
thing
to keep in
mind
is
that
we
slip into courtat
an unexpected
time

defending
Sent
To
Isaak
Misha Perkins Coie
Wednesday
Cc Katharine
Jr
we
should mention
Message
Potter Sheila
kdiaz
with the plaintis
the ban
Original
From
below
March 19
2014 12 59
misaak
perkinscoie
com
PM
VON TER STEGGE
aclu or org
Perkins Coie
mailto
Holm
Kristina
Lea
Ann
Easton
Perkins Coie
Joyce
lake
Anna
jmiddleton
law works
com
jjlslaw
com
Johnson Thomas
RE 6 13
Subject
We
MC
cv 01834
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber et
if
al
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
PHONE 503 727 2086
Message
Original
From
Potter Sheila
doj state or
us
PM
Wednesday March 19 2014 12 55

Misha Perkins Coie
Sent
To
Isaak
Cc Katharine
kdiaz
Jr
VON TER STEGGE

Holm
aclu or org
Kristina
Ann
Lea
Easton
Joyce
Perkins Coie
lake
Anna
jmiddleton
law works
com
jjlslaw
com
Johnson Thomas
Perkins Coie
Sure
new
totally
but
get that
briefs as of April
for his
MC
Re 6 13 cv 01834
Subject
own
Geiger et
al
Judge McShane
if
get even
more
Kitzhaber et
will
al
that
about two
he
short
to four
en the time
preparation
Sheila
On Mar 19 2014
at
PM
12 49
Misha
Isaak
misaak
Perkins Coie
perkinscoie
com
wrote
We
court that
counsel
we won
for
be
filing
reply

file
In
here
plaintiffs
is
a proposed
to the
revised version
Ms Pew
I
Counsel
for
necessary and would
We
like to
have been contacted
keep the case on
by
It
2014

for
on
behalf
of all parti
es
Mr
is
is
argument
position
If
to your inquiry
the parties have
who

up
to
an
earlier
Counsel are not
all
date
available
But
on
if
April
or
positions
7 which we
there are other
ates that
advise Ms Pew
Lea
Ann
Misha
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
PHONE 503 727 2086
both
will
Original
From
Sent
To
Message
Potter Sheila
Wednesday
Katharine
March 19
Perkins Coie
doj state or
us
PM
2014 12 41
VON TER STEGGE
Cc Lea Ann Easton

J
Anna
Joyce
law works
lake
jmiddleton
com
jjlslaw
com
kdiaz
Holm
aclu or org
Misha Perkins Coie
Isaak
Johnson Thomas
Kristina
Jr
Perkins Coie
Re 6 13 cv 01834
Subject
think
we
it
looks good but
MC
Geiger et
would suggest a few
happen
al
to
it
Kitzhaber et
edits
below
al
If
any suggestion
w on
in fact plaintiffs
that oral
t file
replies
argument might
earlier
Sheila
On Mar 19 2014
multco us
katevts
Lea
at
12 13
PM
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
multco us
mailto katevts
wrote
Ann
This email works
for
me Thanks
for drafting
it
Kate von Ter Stegge
501 SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
OR 97214
fax
co multnomah or us
mailto katevts
multco us
https
urldefense
url u http
multco us k 06
3D
3D 0A
3D 0A
v1
proofpoint
com
3D
On Wed Mar 19 2014

LEaston
Hi
at
dorsayindianlaw
12 10
com
PM
Lea
Ann
Easton
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
all
First

than Nevada
advancing
or Michigan
the argument
Second
to read the State s
to be grateful that
we
live
Response
and
practice
to the
in
S ummary
Oregon
During our
call
on Monday
we
discussed
sending her a
joint
rather
t
and
response and
ve taken the
liberty
a proposed
of drafting
response
joint
Ms Pew
I
Counsel
necessary and would
We
like to
have been contacted
support
of plaintiffs
to your inquiry
on
behalf
of all parti
es
the parties have
for
keep the case on
by
for
argument
who
and have no
objections
to those
will
is
amicus pleadings
It
is
in
our
201 4 based

Plaintiffs
file
replies in
sup
port of their

argument
an hour may suffice
if
if
Lea
Ann
From
Charlene Pew
mailto Charlene
Sent
To
argument
Pew
Wednesday
Ann
Lea
Cc anna
katevts
ord uscourts gov
March 19
mailto Charlene
mailto Charlene
2014 11 07
Pew
Pew
doj state or
jjlslaw
com
multco us
TRJohnson
Subject
ord uscourts gov
AM
us
mailto
anna
mailto jmiddleton
mailto katevts
joyce
jjlslaw
multco us
doj state or
doj state or
us
com
perkinscoie
Re 6 13 cv 01834

mailto
MC
TRJohnson
Geiger et
al
us
com
kdiaz

MIsaak
perkinscoie com
sheila potter
ord uscourts gov
Easton
joyce
jmiddleton
ord uscourts gov
lake
doj state or
perkinscoie
Kitzhaber et
aclu or org
law
us
com
al
Counsel
Wondering
so
if
you have determined
was counsel open
to advancing
if
Oral Argument
the argument
will
Please
image002 png
Charlene Pew
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue

Eugene
Phone
Room 2100
OR 97401
541
431 4105
tel
28541
29
20431 4105

advise
when you can
not
Thank y ou
If
From
Ann
Lea
LEaston
Easton
Charlene Pew
To
Charlene Pew
Cc
works com
jjlslaw
jjlslaw
com
mailto lake
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto Charlene
mailto Charlene
Pew
law works
Pew
ord uscourts gov
ord uscourts gov
com
lake
law
com
law works
com
com
mailto kdiaz
KJHolm
KJHolm
ord uscourts gov
law works
mailto lake
jmiddleton
mailto LEaston
ord uscourts gov
lake
jmiddleton
or org
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jmiddleton
aclu or org
kdiaz
jjlslaw
jjlslaw
com
com
aclu or org
kdiaz
aclu
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org

perkinscoie com
MIsaak
perkinscoie com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
perkinscoie
anna
joyce
doj state or
us
anna
joyce
doj state or

sheila potter
doj state or
sheila potter
doj state or
mailto
us
multco us
katevts
03
Date
joyce
doj state or
katevts
anna
us
doj state or
us
multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
AM
01834 MC
14 2014 11 06
Re 6 13 cv
Subject
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber et
al
Ms Pew
I
inquiry
on
McShane
behalf
of
all
of
Judge McShane
Counsel
for
the parties
will
you
meet
to respond
to discuss
to your
Judge
is
necessary next week

Lea
Ann
Co
Counsel
great
weekend
Easton
for
Geiger
On Mar 13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene Pew
ord uscourts gov
mailto Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene Pew
ord uscourts gov
mailto Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
If you do
happy
way
to
accommodate the
parties
if
you don
that is fine also
Please
Thank you
Charlene Pew
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
541
Oregon
431 4105
tel
28541
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
29
20431 4105
NOTICE

disclosure
If
is privileged
confidential
or
it
confidential
and immediately
delete the
exempt from
or otherwise
appears from the
context
me immediately b
or
y reply
message and any
IRS

regulations
contained
in this

otherwise
any
federal
ta x advice


avoiding
ii
penalties that
promoting
may
Cod e
or
NOTICE
have
This communication
received
it
in error
may
contain privileged
by
or disclosing
If
you

the contents
Thank you
reply email
From
Potter Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
To
Sent
3 19 2014 2 36 54
Subject
RE
Thank
you
6 13 cv 01834
Sorry for being one
PM
MC
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber et
al
of the way too many cooks
From
Lea Ann Easton
mailto LEaston dorsayindi anlaw com
Sent
Wednesday
March 19
2014 2 36 PM
To
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Potter Sheila H
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Cc
Joyce Anna
kdiaz aclu or org
Holm
lake law works com
Perkins Coie
Subject
RE
6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Kristina J
All
I
will
Lea
send
the email as amended
by all
to Ms
Pew
Ann
From
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Sent
Wednesday
March
19
2014 2 27 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna
kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz
Kristina J
Perkins Coi e
Subject
This
RE
looks
6 13 cv
good
01834
MC Geiger et al v
et al
to us
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins
Couch Street
1120 N W
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
503 914 8918
Coie
FAX
503 346 2176
E MAIL
From
Kitzhaber
Potter Sheila
LLP
com mailto trjohnson perkinscoie
mailto sheila
potter
doj state
or us
com
aclu
or org
Holm
Sent
To
Wednesday
Isaak
Misha
March 19 2014 2 26
PM
Perkins Coie
Katharine VON TER

STEGGE
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna
kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org
Holm
Kristina J
Perkins Coie
lake law
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Subject
RE
6 13 cv 01834 MC Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Cc
One thing to keep in mind is

I m not insisting on April 23 so much as I m hesitating over the wording
that
if we do move it up
our office will need to let the press know
since it s been
widely reported
April 23 argument a couple times now
Not much value to an open process if we slip into court at an
unexpected time
as an
Suggested adjustment to the last paragraph below

we should mention
that the possible amici are aligned with the plaintiffs so far
so that the judge isn t expecting amicus
briefs
defending
the ban
Original Message
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
mailto misaak perkinscoie
From
Sent
Wednesday
March 19
2014 12
59 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna
kdiaz
Kristina J
Coie
Subject
RE
We
Perkins
Coie
6 13 cv
01834
are not opposed
Misha
PHONE
Isaak
503 727
lake
law
Perkins
2086
Coie LLP
aclu
works com mailto lake law
MC Geiger et al v
to just sticking
com
to the
Kitzhaber
existing date
wor
or org mailto kdiaz

ks com
Johnson
aclu
et al
if
that
is the State
or org
Thomas R
s preference
Jr
Holm
Perkins
Original
From
Potter
Sheila
Wednesday
Sent
To
Message
Misha
Isaak
mailto
doj
sheila potter
March 19 2014 12 55
Subject
us
Perkins Coie

Lea Ann
com
or
PM
Cc
works
state
Johnson
Re
Sure
totally
of April 1
I
Thomas R
6 13 cv
01834
Easton
Joyce
Holm
Jr
Anna
jmiddleton
Kristina J
Perkins
MC Geiger et al v
jjlslaw
mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com

kdiaz aclu
Coie
lake law works com mailto lake law
com
Perkins
Coie
Kitzhaber
et
al
get that
but if Judge McShane will be reading and thinking about two to four new briefs as
get even more hesitant about our suggesting that he shorten the time for his own preparation
Sheila
On Mar 19
2014
at 12 49 PM
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
misaak perkinscoie com mailto misaak perkinscoie com
We
have
not yet decided
we won t be filing
Rummell plaintiffs
Ms
Pew
whether
to file
a reply
so it
a reply
In an effort t o synthesize
here is a proposed revised version
Coie
wrote
would be premature
the changes
proposed
to represent
by counsel
to the court
for the State
that
and the
have been authorized by counsel
on whether
question
We
have
been contacted
the plaintiffs
April 1
2014
to
respond
to
oral argument
your inquiry
on
behalf of all
is necessary
parties
Counsel
and would like
by at least two attorneys who
for the
to keep
are preparing
position
It is our understanding that those
es have discussed
the Court s
the case on for argument
parti
amicus
pleadings
amicus pleadings
will
both
in support
be submitted
of
on or before
If the Court wishes to move argument up to an earlier date

positions
counsel
Counsel are not all available on April 2 or 7
which we understand
were offered
would be open to doing so
But if there are other dates that would be convenient
for the Court
to Mr
counsel
would be happy to check their schedule s and advise Ms
Pew
And
of course
we all remain available
for argument on April 23
Lea
Ann
Misha
Misha
PHONE
Isaak
Perkins
Coie
LLP
503 727 2086
Original Message
From
Potter Sheila
mailto sheila
p otter doj state or us
Wednesday
Sent
To
Katharine
March 19
Perkins
Jr
Joyce
Anna
jmiddleton
Coie
lake law
Perkins Coie
Subject
PM
VON TER STEGGE
Cc Lea Ann Easton

J
2014 12 41
Re
6 13 cv
jjlslaw
works com
01834
com mailto jmiddleton
mailto lake
MC Geiger et al v
I think it looks good but would suggest

should say that right upfront and link it
law
jjlslaw
com
works com
Kitzhaber
kdiaz
Isaak
aclu
or
org
Misha
mailto kdiaz
Perkins
Coie
aclu
or
org
Holm
Johnson
Kristina
Thomas
et al
a few edits
below
If in fact plaintiffs won t file replies
to any suggestion that oral argument might happen earlier
Sheila
On Mar 19
2014
at 12 13 PM
katevts multco us mailto katevt
Lea

s multco us mailto katevts
Ann
This
email works for me
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
Thanks
for drafting it
multco us 3cmailto
katevts
multco us
wrote
we
Senior
Assistant
501 SE
503
County Attorney
Hawthorne
988 3138
Suite
Multnomah
500
503 988 3377
County Attorney
Portland
OR 97214
fax
katevts
mailto katevts co multnomah or us multco us https
multc
o us k 06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ 3D 3D 0A r QBulut
k4JWKz9MUdVmlht5kPe0PL8Kr4L1jyGC05Mpg
3D 0A m 4vU505fqOd
3D 0A s 22200c1adf694074835b5eb13531f86fcc7f5c51eeb5146bee841cd6dae1bf85
m
l6iSRvmjTvdhrQzNQwAppS2HGmowIB88M
ailto katevts
3cmailto katevts co multnomah or us 3emultco us 3chttps
urldefense proofpoi
nt com v1 url u
http
multco us k 06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ 3D 3D 0A r QBulutk4JWKz9MUdVmlht5kPe0PL8Kr4L1jyGC05Mpg
3D 0A
3D 0A s 22200c1adf694074835b5eb13531f86fcc7f5c51eeb5146bee841c
d6dae1bf85
On
Wed
Mar 19
2014
at 12 10 PM

Lea Ann Easton
mailto LEaston
wrote
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3cmailto
Hi all
First
hope
everyone
has had an opport unity to read
the State
s Response
to the Summary Judgment
Motions
moment
and
take
and
advancing
liberty
Ms
the
to
be
grateful
that
we
live
During our
argument
of drafting a proposed
and
practice in
Oregon
call on Monday
joint
rather
than
Nevada
we discussed
or
Michigan
sending
Second
the
court
her a joint
has
sent
another inquiry about
response
and I
the
response
Pew
I have been authorized by counsel to respond to your inquiry on behalf of all parties
Counsel
parties have discussed
the Court s question on whether oral argument is necessary and would like
case
argument
ve taken
for th
to keep
e
the
on for argument

by at least two attorneys who are preparing amicus pleadings in support of
plaintiffs and have no objections
to those amicus pleadings
It is our understanding that those amicus
pleadings will be submitted on or before April 1
2014 based on the Court s scheduling order
Plaintiffs have reviewed the response briefs and do not plan to file replies i
n support of their summary
judgment motions
That being the case
if the Court has time available prior to April 23rd at a time when
counsel
are all available
the parties would be open to advancing argument to a new date
if the Court
wishes to do so
Two hours may not necessary for such argument
an hour may suffice
but counsel will of
course
Lea
defer
to the Court s preference
as to the length
of time reserved for argument
Ann
From
Pew ord uscourts gov mailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov 3cma
ilto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov
mailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov mailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov
mailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts
gov 3cmailto Charlene Pew ord uscourts gov 3e
Sent
Wednesday
March
19
2014 11 07 AM
To
Lea
Ann
Easton
Cc anna joyce
doj
state
or
us
mailto anna joyce
doj
state or
us
mailto anna joyce
doj
state or
us
3cmailto
anna
joyce
doj
state
or
us
com mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com 3cmailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com

kdiaz
or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3cmailto kdiaz aclu
or org
jmiddleton
jjlslaw
com mailto jmiddleton
jjlslaw
KJHolm perkinscoie com mailto KJHolm perkinscoie com mailto KJHolm

ie com
lake law works com mailto lake law works com mailto lake
works com
MIsaak perkinscoie com mai lto MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak
ie com
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us
ilto sheila potter doj state or us
TRJohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie com mailto
on perkinscoie com
Subject
Re
6 13 cv
01834
MC Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber
perkinscoie
com 3cmailto KJHolm
law works com 3cmailto lake law
perkinscoie
com 3cmailto
mailto sheila
TRJohnson
potter
perkinscoie
MIsaak
perkinsco
perkinsco
doj state or us 3cma

com 3cmailto
TRJohns
et al
Counsel
Wondering
if you have determined if Oral Argument will be n ecessary in this case
counsel
open to advancing the argument
Please advise when you can
Thank you
image002
Charlene
Courtroom
United
Pew
Deputy to Judge
States
District
405
png
Michael
District Court
of Oregon
8th Avenue
Room 2100
McShane
aclu
or not
If
so
was
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
97401
431 4105
tel
28541
29
From Lea Ann Easton

20431 4105
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
To
Cc
works
works
lake law
com 3e
com
com mailto LEaston
Pew ord uscourts

Pew ord usco
gov
urts gov
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto Charlene
Pew ord uscourts
gov
3c
mailto Charlene
Pew ord uscourts
gov
3cm

mailto lake law works com 3cmailto lake law
lake law works com mailto lake law works com mailto l
ake law works com 3cmailto

slaw com 3e
law com
kdiaz aclu
or org 3e
kdiaz aclu
or org
mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com
3cmailto
mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw
com 3cmailto
lake law
jmiddleton jjl
mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com mailto jmiddleton jjlslaw com

3cmailto jmiddleton jjls
mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3cmailto kdiaz aclu
or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org 3cmailto kdiaz aclu
mailto KJHolm perkinscoie
com
mailto KJHolm perkinscoie
com 3cmailto
KJHolm
perkins
coie
com
MIsaak
3e
KJHolm
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com mailto
com mailto KJHolm
Isaak
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
com mailto KJHolm
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
3cmailto
KJHolm
com 3cmailto
perkinscoie
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
om 3e
MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com 3cmailto MIsaak perkinsc
oie com
TRJohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJohnson pe rkinscoie com
mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie com 3cmailto TRJoh
nson perkinscoie com 3e
com mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie
com 3cmailto TRJohn
son perkinscoie com
anna joyce doj state or us mailto a nna joyce doj state or us
mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3cmailto an
na joyce doj state or us 3e
anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us 3cmailto ann
a joyce doj state or us
mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3c
mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3cm
ailto sheila potter doj state or us
mailto katevts multco us 3cmailto katevts multco us 3e
Date
03 14 2014 11 06 AM
Subject
Re
6 13 cv
01834
MC Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber
et al
Ms Pew
I have been authorized

behalf of Judge McShane
week and have a response
Thank
you and have
by all of counsel in these cases to contact you to respond to your inquiry on

Couns el for the parties will meet to discuss Judge McShane s question early next
on whether oral argument is necessary next week
a great
weekend
Lea
Ann
Co
Counsel
Easton
for
On Mar 13
Geiger
2014
Plaintiffs
at 4 54 PM

wrote
Pew ord uscourts
gov
Pew ord uscourts
gov
mailto Charlene
mailto
Charlene
Pew ord uscourts

Pew ord uscourts
gov
gov
Counsel
Judge McShane asked me to contact the parties to see if they were still
wanting to have Oral Argument on
the Summary Judgment Motions in this case
If you
do
the court is more than happy to accommodate the
parties
if you don t that is fine also
Please notify the court either way
Thank you
Charlene
Courtroom
United
Deputy to Judge
States
District
541
Pew
Michael
McShane
District Court
of Oregon
431 4105 tel
28541
29 20431
4105
3c
3cm
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
NOTICE
may contain information
that is privileged
confidential
or
otherwise exempt from
disclosure
under
applicable
law
If
you
are
not
the
addressee
or
it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e mail in error
please advise me
immediately by reply e mail
and immediately delete the message and any
from your system
attachments

we inform
you that
is not intended or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used
the taxpayer
for the purpose of
i
ii
promoting
marketing or recomme nding to another party any transaction or
or any attachments
NOTICE
This communication
information
If you have received
it in error
please advise the
sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
Thank you
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Charlene
CC
Joyce Anna
KJHolm
Pew
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
TRJohnson
Sent
3 19 2014 2 41 36
Subject
RE
No ce
This
intended
communica on
a specic
for
should delete
any disclosure
including
MC
Geiger et al v
com
kdiaz
MIsaak
aclu or org
com
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
and
Kitzhaber et al
may contain
any a achments
copying
multco us
katevts
law works
PM
6 13 cv 01834
communica on and
this
com
jjlslaw
com lake
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
is
privileged or
by law
protected
conde
you are
If
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on

hereby no ed that
and are
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
we
communica on
including
any a achments
inform you that any
Code
avoiding
party any transac
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
is
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ed
or recom
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
Ms Pew
discussed the Court s ques on
on whether
oral argument
is
all
pares
Counsel
for
the pares have
keep the case on
necessary and would like to
for
argument
We
have been contacted
plain s posi on
2014
If
It
by at
least
two a orneys who
our understanding
is
will
oth
in
support of the
ed on or before
be submi
April
the Court wishes to move argument up to an
to doing so
Counsel are not
poten al dates
check
that those amicus pleadings
their
But
if
all
available
on
earlier
April
date
in light
2 or 7 which
we
understand
there are other dates that would be convenient
schedules and advise
Ms Pew
And
of course
we
all
of the pares
osi ons
were
the Court
for
remain available fo
counsel would be
oered
to
Mr
open
Perriguey
as
counsel would be happy to

r
argument on
April
23rd
Lea Ann Easton
Dorsay
Easton LLP
Suite 440
SW
Columbia
Portland
OR
97258
503 790 9060
From
Sent
Pew
Charlene
Wednesday
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
anna joyce
lake
law works
ord uscourts gov
March 19
doj state or us
com
MIsaak
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
2014 11 07 AM
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
jjlslaw
com
com
katevts
sheila potter
multco
us
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu or
TRJohnson
org
KJHolm
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
com
Subject
Re
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Counsel
Wondering
you have determined
if
the argument
if
Oral Argument
when you can
Please advise
be necessary
will
in this
case or
If
not
so
was counsel open
to
advancing
Thank you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy to Judge Michael
McShane
Oregon
District of
405 E 8th Avenue
From
Lea Ann
To
Charlene
Easton
Pew
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
LEaston
lake
katevts
law works
multco us
katevts
03 14 2014
11
06
cv
01834
Date
Re
Subject
6 13
431 4105
com
Pew
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts gov
com
lake
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
KJHolm
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
anna
Cc
Room 2100
97401
Charlene
com
perkinscoie com
law works
joyce
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
MIsaak
doj state or us
jjlslaw
com
jmiddleton
com
MIsaak
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
anna
joyce
doj state or us
com
perkinscoie
sheila potter
kdiaz
com
aclu or org
TRJohnson
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
sheila potter
or org
com
doj state or us
multco us
AM
MC
Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et al
Ms Pew
McShane
by
all
Counsel for the
response on whether
oral argument
is
to respond to
parties will
necessary
next
question early next
week and have
week
Lea Ann Easton
Co
Counsel for Geiger
On Mar
13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
Thank you
Pew
District of
the court
District
Oregon
431 4105
Court
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
3 19 2014 3 46 21
Subject
Automatic
will
time
be out
If
of
you need
the
office
immediate
reply
PM
Geiger v
until
Kitzhaber
Monday
assistance
March
24
please contact
will
not
Michael
be checking
Casper at
emails
503
378
during
4402
that
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Mary Williams
Sent
3 19 2014 4 11 53
Subject
Re
was
very happy to see your
have an
interest
Though we do
and
cannot say
it
enough
have been so
interests
am
quite
not even be discussed
lines
know
not
PM
Kitzhaber
name come up
at
the day before y
post transition from the
in participating
how
AG
all
utterly
still
it
is
very powerful for Lea
ma
tters that in
our
Ann
lifetime
the dinner table or in polite company
humane
my
d expected you might
to your next a dventure
to be so honest and direct about these matters
Thank you and Sheila for meeting with
while appreciating
submitted the brief an
s office
important and singular your brief will become
personally for the Government
could
Geiger v
and
kind
me
and throughly professional
my clients
back
in
in
August
You
managing to d
and Sheila on the front
eftly
represent the State s
goals
so impressed
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Mar
19 2014
Thank you
Lake
Civil
at
Justice
4 04
m very
PM
Mary
Williams
mary h williams
proud to have played a role
in this
msn com
wrote
one
Mary
my iPhone
Sent from
On Mar
Sheila
The
19 2014
at
3 47
PM
Lake Perriguey
is
beautiful
elegant
your work engenders
Personally
and
wrote
inspiring
a feeling of enormous pride and appreciation
with the immense responsibility for and power
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
law works com
Anna and Mary
response brief
1906
lake
www
97205
law works com
of
its
governing
to live
do such patently exc
in
a state where those entrusted
ellent
work
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
3 20 2014 1 22 47
Subject
RE
Thanks
Lake
What
From
Lake
Sent
Wednesday
To
a sweet
Perriguey
19
Geiger v
Anna
Sheila
and
response
your work
engenders
state
those
James H
Lake
Law
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Sheila
Joyce
entrusted
excellent
elegant
and
Madison
a feeling of
with the
immense
enormous
pride
and
responsibility
for
work
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
www
law
skype
lagojaime
Guardian
97205
works
of
Anna
inspiring
Perriguey
http
OTLA
com
LLC
Portland
T
works
Mary
Personally
patently
law
11 19 AM
Potter
beautiful
do such
say
Kitzhaber
brief is
where
to
lake
2014
com
PM
Kitzhaber
thing
mailto
March
mary h williams msn
Subject
The
Geiger v
com http
Civil
Justice
www
law
works
com
appreciation
and
power
to
of
live
its
in a
governing
From
Charlene
To
Lea Ann Easton
Pew
CC
Joyce Anna
KJHolm
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
TRJohnson
Sent
3 20 2014 1 29 00
Subject
RE
looks as though
It
argument
have
MC
Geiger et al v
remain on 4 23
to
multco us
katevts
law works
com
kdiaz
MIsaak
aclu or org
com
perkinscoie
Sheila
Potter
PM
6 13 cv 01834
will
com
jjlslaw
com lake
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
Kitzhaber et al
1 30 as the
has no
court
other
dates available
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
From
Lea Ann
To
Charlene
Cc
anna
kdiaz
aclu
MIsaak
Easton
Pew
joyce
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
RE 6 13
Subject
No ce
This
intended
541 431 4105
LEaston
aclu
cv
dorsayindianlaw
or org
MIsaak
any disclosure
this
com
Pew
ord uscourts gov
joyce
doj state or us
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
jmiddleton
com
sheila potter
jjlslaw
KJHolm
com
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
doj state or us
com
sheila potter
jjlslaw
lake
com
law works
katevts
com
multco
lake
TRJohnson
doj state or us
us
katevts
multco us
com
perkinscoie com
law works
PM
01834
MC
a specic
should delete
Charlene
anna
Geiger
communica on
for
97401
com
03 19 2014 02 41
Date
Phone
doj state or us
kdiaz
TRJohnson
OR
ord uscourts gov
or org
Room 2100
Eugene
et
al
Kitzhaber
including
et al
communica on and
copying
may contain
any a achments
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
conde
you are
If
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
of any ac
hereby no ed that
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
avoiding
including
we
any a achments
inform you that any

is
party any transac
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
Code
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
Ms Pew
on whether
oral argument
is
all
pares
Counsel
for
the pares have
keep the case on
for
argument
We
have been contacted
plain s posi on
2014
If
It
by at
least
two a orneys who
our understanding
is
support of the
in
ed on or before
be submi
will
oth
April
to doing so
Counsel are not
poten al dates
check
But
earlier
date
in light
2 or 7 which
April
we
Ms Pew
And
of course
we
all
of the pares
understand
if
their
on
available
all
osi ons
were
the Court
for
counsel would be
oered
to
Mr
open
Perriguey
as
remain available fo
argument on
April
23rd
Lea Ann Easton
Dorsay
Easton LLP
Suite 440
SW
Columbia
OR
Portland
97258
503 790 9060
From
Sent
Pew
Charlene
Wednesday
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
anna joyce
lake
law works
Subject
ord uscourts gov
doj state or us
com
MIsaak
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
Re
Charlene
mailto
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
2014 11 07 AM
March 19
et
com
jjlslaw
com
v
al
katevts
sheila potter
Kitzhaber
et
multco
us
kdiaz
doj state or us
aclu or
TRJohnson
org
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
com
perkinscoie
al
Counsel
Wondering
you have determined
if
the argument
if
Oral Argument
when you can
Please advise
will
be necessary
in this
case or
not
If
so
was counsel open
to
Thank you
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
From
To
Lea Ann
Charlene
Easton
Pew
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
LEaston
katevts
Date
Subject
lake
law works
multco us
katevts
03 14 2014
11
06
cv
01834
Re
6 13
97401
dorsayindianlaw
com

com
jmiddleton
jjlslaw com
jmiddleton
perkinscoie com
MIsaak
perkinscoie com
MIsaak
ord uscourts gov
com
lake
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
KJHolm
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
anna
Cc
Room 2100
Eugene
Charlene
law works
joyce
doj state or us
anna
multco us
AM
MC
Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et al
joyce
doj state or us
jjlslaw
com
perkinscoie
sheila potter
kdiaz
com
aclu or org
TRJohnson
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
sheila potter
or org
com
doj state or us
advancing
Ms Pew
McShane
by
all
Counsel for the
response on whether
oral argument
is
to respond to
parties will
necessary
next
question early next
week and have
week
Lea Ann Easton
Co
Counsel for Geiger
On Mar
13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
Thank you
Pew
District of
the court
District
Oregon
431 4105
Court
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Charlene
CC
Joyce Anna
Pew
KJHolm
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
TRJohnson
Sent
3 20 2014 1 43 10
Subject
RE
No ce
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
this
any disclosure
including
MC
Geiger et al v
com
kdiaz
MIsaak
aclu or org
perkinscoie
com
Potter
Sheila
and
Kitzhaber et al
may contain
any a achments
communica on and
multco us
katevts
law works
PM
6 13 cv 01834
copying
com
jjlslaw
com lake
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
is
privileged or
by law
protected
If
conde
you are
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
hereby no ed that
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
we
communica on
avoiding
any a achments
including
inform you that any

is
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
Code
party any transac
or
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ii
ce contained
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
Ms Pew
Okay
Thank you
for
the prompt response
Lea Ann Easton
From
Sent
Pew
Charlene
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
anna joyce
lake
law works
Subject
It
ord uscourts gov
March 20
Thursday
doj state or us
com
MIsaak
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
looks as though
mailto
Charlene
argument
will
have
to
et
jjlslaw
com
al
com
Kitzhaber
remain on 4 23

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
Lea Ann
Charlene
Easton
Pew
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
LEaston
Room 2100
97401
431 4105
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts gov
katevts
sheila potter
To
ord uscourts
gov
et
Charlene
com
Pew
ord uscourts gov
multco
us
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu or
TRJohnson
org
KJHolm
perkinscoie
al
1 30 as the
Pew
Charlene
From
Pew
2014 1 29 PM
McShane
court
has no
other
dates available
perkinscoie
com
com
Cc
anna
kdiaz
aclu
MIsaak
joyce
kdiaz
aclu
com
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
MIsaak
RE 6 13
Subject
No ce
This
intended
cv
com
jjlslaw
KJHolm
sheila potter
MC
Geiger
et
al
Kitzhaber
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
doj state or us
com
jjlslaw
lake
sheila potter
com
law works
katevts
com
multco us
lake
TRJohnson
doj state or us
katevts
multco
us
com
perkinscoie com
law works
et al
copying
may contain
any a achments
including
communica on and
this
any disclosure
com
jmiddleton
com
perkinscoie
PM
01834
a specic
should delete
doj state or us
perkinscoie
communica on
for
joyce
KJHolm
or org
com
perkinscoie
03 19 2014 02 41
Date
anna
doj state or us
or org
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
conde
you are
If
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on

hereby no ed that
and are
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
we
communica on
including
any a achments
inform you that any
party any transac
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
is
Code
avoiding
or
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
ii
ce contained
ed
or recom
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
Ms Pew
on whether
oral argument
is
all
pares
Counsel
for
the pares have
keep the case on
for
argument
We
have been contacted
plain s posi on
2014
If
It
by at
least
two a orneys who
our understanding
is
will
oth
in
support of the
ed on or before
be submi
April
to doing so
Counsel are not
poten al dates
check
their
But
if
all
on
available
earlier
April
date
in light
2 or 7 which
we
of the pares
understand
Ms Pew
And
of course
we
all
osi ons
oered
were
the Court
for
counsel would be
to
Mr
open
Perriguey
as
remain available fo
argument on
April
23rd
Lea Ann Easton
Easton LLP
Dorsay
Suite 440
SW
Columbia
Portland
OR
97258
503 790 9060
From
Sent
Charlene
Pew
Wednesday
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
anna joyce
lake
law works
Subject
Re
ord uscourts
March 19
doj state or us
com
MIsaak
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
2014 11 07 AM
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
et
jjlslaw
com
al
com
sheila
katevts
potter
Kitzhaber
et
al
multco
us
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu
TRJohnson
or
org
KJHolm
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
com
Counsel
Wondering
you have determined
if
the argument
if
Oral Argument
when you can
Please advise
be necessary
will
in this
case or
If
not
so
was counsel open
to
advancing
Thank you
Pew
Charlene
McShane
Oregon
District of
405 E 8th Avenue
From
Lea Ann
To
Charlene
Easton
Pew
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
LEaston
lake
katevts
law works
multco us
katevts
03 14 2014
11
06
cv
01834
Date
Re
Subject
6 13
431 4105
com
Pew
dorsayindianlaw
ord uscourts gov
com
lake
KJHolm
perkinscoie com
KJHolm
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
anna
Cc
Room 2100
97401
Charlene
com
perkinscoie com
law works
joyce
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
MIsaak
doj state or us
jjlslaw
com
jmiddleton
com
MIsaak
jjlslaw
perkinscoie
anna
joyce
doj state or us
com
perkinscoie
sheila potter
kdiaz
com
aclu or org
TRJohnson
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
sheila potter
or org
com
doj state or us
multco us
AM
MC
Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et al
Ms Pew
McShane
by
all
Counsel for the
response on whether
parties will
oral argument
is
to respond to
necessary
next
question early next
week and have
week
Lea Ann Easton
Co
Counsel for Geiger
On Mar
13 2014
at
Plaintiffs
4 54
PM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts gov
wrote
Counsel
Judge McShane
Judgment
also
Please
Charlene
asked
me
to

notify
If
you do
United States
541
Thank you
Pew
District of
the court
District
Oregon
431 4105
Court
McShane
is
if
they were
still
more than happy
wanting
to
to
accommodate
the parties
if
you don
Summary
t
that
is
fine
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
3 20 2014 1 43 27
Subject
Automatic
will
time
be out
If
of
you need
the
office
immediate
reply
PM
6 13 cv 01834
until
Monday
assistance
MC
Geiger et al v
March
24
please contact
Kitzhaber et al
will
not
Michael
be checking
Casper at
emails
503
378
during
4402
that
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
lake
law works
MIsaak
com
Sent
3 21 2014 3 19 11
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes com
Jennifer
Middleton
TRJohnson
multco us
PM
com
NYTimes
com
perkinscoie
katevts
Michigan
Ban on Same Sex Marriage
Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage
comcast
Sent by uncleannie3
Is Struck
Is
Struck
Down
Down
net
Michigan Ban on Same Sex

Marriage Is Struck
Down
BY ERIK ECKHOLM
federal
say
Or copy and paste

http
To
nyti
get
ms
it
is
this
judge issued the latest in a string of rulings that

to deny marriage to gay couples
unconstitutional
URL
into
to
New
your browser
1evyFOj
unlimited
access
all
York Times
articles
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
To ensure
delivery
to
your
inbox
please add
nytdirect
nytimes
com
to
your address book
ADVERTISEMENT
Copyright
2014

York
NY 10018
perkinscoie
com
From
Potter Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
To
Sent
3 21 2014 3 20 49
Subject
RE NYTimes com
PM
Michigan Ban on
Same
Sex Marriage
Is
Down
Struck
Wooooooooooooooooooooo
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 19 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Jennifer Middleton
TRJohnson perkinscoie
katevts multco us
works com
Subject
FW
NYTimes com
Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage Is Struck Down
Subject
Sent
NYTimes
com
by uncleannie3
http
https
Michigan
nytlogo194x27
Or
copy
issued the latest
and paste this URL
icons
gif
t
wb 75 gif
into
in a string
your browser
of r ulings
http
that
get unlimited access
to all
New
York Times articles
pf2p679
say it
9 user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895b
is unconstitutional
to deny
marriage to
nyti ms 1evyFOj
http
p nytimes com email re location InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUi
To
law
comcast net

http
By ERIK ECKHOLM
A federal judge
gay couples
lake
Ban on Same Sex Marriage Is Struck Down
com
pf2p679
subscribe
today
See Subscription
Options
http
p nytimes
com email
re location
6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk
gi id 0
To
ensure
address
delivery
4z5Q7LhI
to your inbox
email type eta task
vYPHy JP5GfoOOml3K0i
id 1395440269306907 re
nytimes com
to your
book
Advertisement
http
http
www nytimes com adx
427 camp FoxSearchlight AT2014 1911121C
264 sn1 b961351 c8ef1
2Ecom 2Fbelle 2F
Copyright
2014 http
gi id 0
The New York Times
Company http
NYTimes com 620 Eighth Avenue New York
NY
3a4895bd9464 email typ e eta task id 1395440269306907 regi id 0
10018
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
3 21 2014 3 22 55
Subject
RE
Attachments
213772631
Here
From
Sent
To
Sheila
PM
com
NYTimes
Michigan
Doboer Findings

of
Fact and Conclusions
of
Is
Struck
Down
Law pdf
the decision
Potter
Friday
Sheila
March 21
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 21 PM
Lea Ann Easton
RE NYTimes com
Subject
Is Struck
Down
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Potter
katevts
March 21
Sheila
mailto
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 3 19 PM
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
Jennifer
Middleton
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
lake
multco us
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes com
NYTimes com
comcast
Sent by uncleannie3
Is Struck
Is Struck
Down
Down
net

Marriage Is Struck
Down
BY ERIK ECKHOLM
federal
say
Or copy and paste

http
To
get
nyti
ms
it
is
this

unconstitutional
URL
into
to
New
your browser
1evyFOj
unlimited
access
all
York Times
articles
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
To ensure
delivery
to
your
inbox
please add
nytdirect
ADVERTISEMENT
nytimes
com
to
your address book
law works
com
Copyright
2014

York
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
applicable law
NY 10018
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
Pg
1 of 31
ID 3944

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
APRIL
DEBOER
and next friend of

minors and
N D R R D R and
JAYNE
ROWSE
as parent and next friend of
and
DR
and as parent
individually
DR
individually
and
ND R RD R
minors
Civil Action
Plaintiffs
No 12 CV10285
HON BERNARD
A FRIEDMAN
vs
RICHARD SNYDER
Governor
BILL
in
his official
of the State of Michigan
SCHUETTE
his official
in
capacity
as
and
capacity
as
Michigan Attorney General
Defendants
FINDINGS
Plaintiffs
April
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DeBoer and Jayne Rowse
plaintiffs
voter approved amendment to the Michigan Constitution
hereinafter
the Michigan Marriage
Michigan Marriage Amendment
Amendment
or
that
challenge
prohibits
MMA
be the only agreement recognized
Plaintiffs
maintain that the
Fourteenth
Amendment
same sex
marriage
Mich Const Art I
25 The
states To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our
society and for future generations of children the union of one
shall
a November 2004
MMA
man
and one
woman
in
marriage
as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.
violates
the
Due
Clauses of the
to the United States Constitution and they seek to enjoin state and
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
county
from enforcing
officials
Doc
151
Filed
the provision and
03 21 14 Pg
implementing statutes
its
After reviewing the evidence presented at the trial
expert witnesses the exhibits and stipulations
involved
the Court concludes that the
MMA
and
is
2 of 31
after
Pg
ID 3945
including the testimony of various
considering
all
of the legal issues
and will enjoin
unconstitutional
its
enforcement
samesex
I
Background
The
underlying facts of this case are straightforward
Park Michigan
couple residing in Hazel
and
jointly
own
their
neonatal intensive
residence
2011 DeBoer
plaintiffs
care unit at Hutzel Hospital
In
and Rowse
initially
24 Mich Comp Laws

claimed
a nurse in the
an emergency room nurse
Unable to
710.24 which
restricts
section 24 violates
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that
Henry
In April
adopt the three children
Code
that
hereinafter
the Court
section
to either single persons or married
adoptions
among
at
as a single person legally
jointly
section 24 of the Michigan Adoption
that
is
also as a single person she legally adopted child
impermissibly discriminates against unmarried couples
to
DeBoer
the instant action against the state defendants requesting
filed
Plaintiffs
is
November 2009 Rowse
as a single person adopted child
enjoin them from enforcing
couples
2011
In October
lived together for the past eight years
Both are state licensed foster parents
Ford Hospital both located in Detroit
adopted child
They have
are an unmarried
Plaintiffs
In response
Clause because
it
other things plaintiffs
moved
lacked standing
to
bring suit
General
The defendants in
Bill
Schuette
County Clerk
successor
in
Bill
this
matter are Michigan Governor
collectively the state defendants
Bullard Jr as a party defendant
office defendant
matter she has adopted
Lisa
plaintiffs
Brown
who was
Although Brown
legal position
challenging
Richard
Plaintiffs
Snyder and Attorney
later
eventually
is
named
the
added former Oakland
replaced by his
as a defendant
MMA
in this
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
The Court
Doc
while plaintiffs
enforcement
made
standing
claim
a colorable
24
of section
were not married and any
Rather
that
to
the
Plaintiffs
were
plaintiffs
The
state
The
to
seek leave
amend
to
their
the Courts invitation and sought leave to
accepted
objection
the validity of the
MMA
in
that
that
fact injured by their
because they
MMA
The Court
complaint to include
Court held the matter in abeyance
decision
its
reasons for excluding
samesex
with biologically
healthy psychological
that
the
in United
connected
of naturally procreative
role
this
time
to
dismiss the amended
States
after
the United
S Ct 2675
Windsor 133
2013
DOMA
summary judgment
The
defendants
state
has legitimate purposes offered the following
definition of marriage
models of both genders
2 avoiding
3 upholding
complaint
on both due process and equal protection
couples from Michigans
development
from redefining marriage
MMA
their
and then denied the motion
Thereafter the parties both filed motions for
support of their argument
amend
The amended complaint included a second
motion
then renewed their
defendants
Supreme Court issued
children
The Court noted
union is prohibited by the
invalidating section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996
in
ID 3946
MMA
cause of action challenging
States
24
section
could not jointly adopt their children
samesex
which the Court granted over defendants
complaint
challenge
to
Pg
3 of 31
motion and expressed reservations
they and their children
plaintiffs
form of
legal
concluded the hearing by inviting
grounds
03 21 14 Pg
to petition for joint adoption this injury was not traceable to defendants
ineligibility
challenge
Filed
held a hearing on the state defendants
did not possess the requisite
plaintiffs
151
tradition
the unintended
are necessary to foster
consequences
and morality and
relationships into stable unions.
that
that
4 promoting
Assuming
1 providing
that
might
result
the transition
the appropriate
level
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
of scrutiny in this case is rational basis review the Court concluded
issues of fact regarding
whether the proffered rationales for the
interest but that plaintiffs had not demonstrated
their
Pg
4 of 31
raised triable
that plaintiffs
MMA
entitlement to
ID 3947
serve a legitimate state
summary judgment
As a
result the Court scheduled the matter for trial
II
Trial Proceedings
Summary of Testimony and
In setting the case for trial
whether the
conduct
in
MMA
survives
a manner
the Court directed
rational
basis review
Findings of Fact
the parties to address a narrow legal issue
words does
In other
related to any conceivable
that is rationally
the
MMA
proscribe
purpose
Plaintiffs
David Brodzinsky as
called psychologist
decades of social science research studies indicate
parenting
Ex
30
at
raised by
that
there is no discernible
competence between lesbian and gay adults and
34
Nor
is
same sex
there any discernible difference
in
their
parents
t he
warmth and
nurturance
opportunities
are provided
rules
characteristics
sic
that
testified that
Tr
The
for the child

is
And
ability
to
between the
employ age
the kinds of educational
important as well as the resources
that
but the resources that
impact the family and the child in particular
2 25 14 pp 69 70
are
of the parent the styles that they adopt parental
are afforded
course the mental health of
Brodzinsky
parents Id
development
quality of the relationships
for the child not only in the family itself
from the outside
in
outcomes of children
the developmental
emotional sensitivity
and structure
that children
testified that
difference
parents as compared to those children raised by heterosexual
quality of parent child relationships
appropriate
He
heterosexual counterparts Pls.
Brodzinsky stressed that the primary factors influencing childhood
the
witness
their first
And
of
the parents
Contrary to the state defendants
there is no body of research supporting
the belief that children
models of both genders to be healthy and well adjusted Id
position Brodzinsky
at
78 79
What
require parent role
matters is the
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
same sex
parenting
same sex
recognizing
become a
fact
of
for
03 21 14 Pg
Id
at
Brodzinsky also addressed
Id
78
many American
marriages would benefit these children
these families with social capital.
investing
Filed
being offered to the child
thats
has
151
life
quality of parenting
Doc
at
Pg
5 of 31
ID 3948
Brodzinsky also noted
children
and
that
legally
that
by promoting family
stability
and
136
the criticism that most of the social science
research studies
selfselecting
informing his conclusions
are statistically
sample populations i
convenience
Brodzinsky indicated that researchers
commonly
use convenience
because they
in
in
studies.
they utilized small and
In addressing this criticism
the fields of child development
studies as a methodological
tool
and family psychology
for studying issues of interest
contrast to large scale studies offer the opportunity for a more detailed analysis
affecting
children and their parents
smallscale convenience samples have
same sex
unreliable because
their
While Brodzinsky acknowledged
that
limitations he highlighted that researchers studying
households have verified the conclusions of
their
convenience studies by consistently
replicating the results of these studies using different research strategies and sample populations
These studies approximately 150 in number have repeatedly demonstrated
scientific
basis to conclude that children
raised by
samesex
that
there is no
parents fare worse than those raised
by heterosexual parents
The Court
weight
He
finds Brodzinskys testimony to be fully
testified
not on their parents
couples
convincingly
that
and gives
it
considerable
childrens outcomes depend on the factors he cited and
gender and not on whether they are raised by heterosexual or
The quality of a persons child rearing
sexual orientation
credible
Brodzinskys credibility
was
skills
is
unrelated
not in any
way
to the persons
same sex
gender or
lessened by the fact that the
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
social science
research
convenience
studies.
butter of
reliable
many
if
different
Doc
upon which
151
As Brodzinsky and
03 21 14 Pg
are based
his opinions
areas of social science
as occurred
Filed
come
and the
here they are consistently
largely from
socalled
results
by
replicated
of such studies are valid and
different
researchers studying
sample groups
Sociologist Michael
Rosenfeld supported
this
conclusion
Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through
from the 2000 United States Census
to
In his 2010 study entitled
School,
Rosenfeld gathered data
examine whether grade school children of
samesex
couples progress through school at the same rate as children raised by heterosexual
Controlling for parental
raised by
children
ID 3949
such studies are the bread and
others testified
research
Pg
6 of 31
income
samesex
education
cohabiting
same sex
levels and family stability Rosenfeld found that
couples progress through school at almost the
raised by heterosexual married couples
couples
Regarding couple
couples reported higher
break up
stability
rates
same
Rosenfeld
than heterosexual
rate
as children
testified that
married couples
samesex
during the years preceding
1990s
However
studies measuring
unions demonstrated
with heterosexual
any legally recognized
married couples
among
cohabiting
Referring to his ongoing
Couples Meet and Stay Together, Rosenfeld confirmed
recognized
unions exhibit the
same
same sex
union
in
the 1980s and
couple stability during the era of legally recognized
longevity rates
that
form of
that
same sex
couples was on par
longitudinal study2 entitled How
same sex
couples in legally
couple stability rates as their heterosexual
married
counterparts
Although he
testified
that the social science community has formed a strong consensus
longitudinal study is one that measures specific indicators
over the course of time
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
the comparable
regarding
recognized
that
a small
Rosenfeld referred
to
Doc
number
of detractors have
a 2013 study conducted
that
critiqued
Allen Palaluk and Price contended
this
from his sample population
argument
uncertainty
at trial
by showing
his study were not inaccurate at all
data indicated
that
Pg
7 of 31
ID 3950
couples Rosenfeld
his research
In particular
by family economists Douglas Allen Catherine
Rosenfelds
who
same sex
criticized
methodology he used
the statistical
that
that
of his results Through
Rosenfelds
03 21 14 Pg
Filed
outcomes of children raised by
Pakaluk and Joseph Price
children
151
results
in
his 2010 study
were inaccurate because he excluded
should have been included
Rosenfeld responded
Allen Pakaluk and Price had overstated the
exhibits Rosenfeld
demonstrative
showed
statistical
the results of
and income levels
After controlling for parental education
the children of heterosexual
that
to
married couples are just as likely to
samesex
be held back
that in
in
school as are the children
terms of school progress there
couples and the children
The Court
the children
shows
of heterosexual
heterosexual
couples
and sociological
Rosenfelds
study
that
children
to
Rosenfeld
fields
showed
this
This finding led
of
samesex
him
to
conclude
between the children of
Rosenfeld
Tr
and gives
2 25 14 p 82
it
great weight
couples do just as well in school as
samesex
couples are just as stable as
notes that the testimony of Brodzinsky and Rosenfeld is in line
within the professional
associations in the
Brodzinsky made the following
that
children
than one percent less likely to be held back
According
married couples.
married couples and that
The Court
couples
testimony to be highly credible
with a strong no differences consensus
psychological
samesex
no significant difference
of heterosexual
finds Rosenfelds
His research convincingly
is
of
in
statement in his expert
raised by heterosexual
school
minuscule difference
married couples are less
than children raised by
is statistically
same sex
insignificant
couples
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
witness report which
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
ID 3951
defendants did not challenge
Every major professional
organization
in this
whose focus
country
the health and well being of children and families has reviewed
data
Pg
8 of 31
is
the
on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples
including the methods by which
concluded
children
that
these
children
are not
raised in heterosexual
expressing
for parenting
support
Medical
Association
Psychiatric
Psychiatry
National
Association
of Social
American
of Pediatrics
American
Child and Adolescent
of
Association
Child Welfare
Workers and
by
fostering
to
Academy
Psychoanalytic
Association
to
Organizations
and or
adoption
American Academy
American
Psychological
households
but are not limited
Association American
compared
disadvantaged
parent
and gay couples include
lesbian
were collected and have
the data
League
American
of
America
the Donaldson Adoption
Institute
Pls.
Ex
30
shown
unrelated
likely
that
to
unanimously voted
same sex
professor
parents to flourish. Pls.
Vivek Sankaran
child but that these proceedings
to
18 Moreover
testified that
the
are burdensome
welfare to file
non legal
parents guardianship
once the
non legal
parent
111
MMA
at
destabilizes
commences
status
finality
every year
a guardianship
to that
removing the guardian
if
raised by
Sankaran
over the
because Michigan courts
until
the child turns
proceeding
there is no
parent or eventually
Michigan law allows any individual possessing an
petition
children
petition for guardianship
and often lack
review a
the child
Ex
of children is
of lesbian and gay parents are as
the non legal parent could
guarantee that the court will either award guardianship
her to adopt
well being
the sole legal parent dies or becomes incapacitated
such circumstances
that in
of the American Psychological
favor of issuing a position statement that research
parental sexual orientation and that the children
couples in the event
are required
in
the adjustment development and psychological
as those of heterosexual
Law
stated
In fact the 2004 Council of Representatives
APA
Association
has
21
at
interest
permit him or
in the childs
the removal would serve the childs best
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Sankaran
interests
a neighbor
teacher
Should the
Doc
testified that
non legal
claims to have
of
Tr
interest in
in
Human
because the child would be
without a legal guardian Sankaran
file
an
any delay
parent encounter
also the prospect that the Michigan Department
child neglect investigation
03 21 14 Pg
Filed
an interested person may include a
who
or anyone
151
left
distant
the child in foster care
Services
DHS
for at least
some
In this event
party to the proceeding
parents
foster
nor would the juvenile court appoint
According
interests
non legal
At the removal proceeding the
to
Sankaran
the
non legal
to
have
reaching effects throughout
far
place the child with the
there are approximately 14,598
non legal
parent
testified
and are
convincingly
at risk
same sex
that
children
DHS
is
authorized
non legal
to
parent and
non legal
to
become a
licensed
then the juvenile court is not
Gary Gates
testified
could
that
currently
couples living in Michigan and that approximately
Tr
2 27 14 p 29
testimony to be fully credible
being raised by
of being placed in legal limbo if
samesex
that
and gives
it
great weight
He
couples have only one legal parent
Denying
parent dies or is incapacitated
couples the ability to marry therefore has a manifestly harmful and destabilizing effect
on such couples
credible
finds Sankarans
period of time
These destabilizing consequences
2,650 such couples are raising 5,300 children Gates
The Court
initiate
parent would not be a
parent would have
the state as demographer
samesex
could
a lawyer to represent the
parent in order to obtain custody of the child and even
required
of the child
the guardianship there is
a petition in juvenile court to remove the child from the custody of the
place
relative
ID 3952
the child.
pursuing
2 26 14 pp 120 121
Pg
9 of 31
children
The
testimony of Gates
witness showed the magnitude
same sex
whom the
of this effect
couples
Court also found to be a highly
by noting
that
5,300 children
in
Michigan
2 12 cv 10285 BAFMJH
Plaintiffs
151
Historian
Nancy
legitimate children
furthered
Social Security
During the twentieth
these goals by granting
many
survivor benefits and government
historical
these benefits the
MMA
31
Pg
to
ID 3953
erodes the benefits that marriage
of the colonies
marriage to foster stable
care for dependents
century the
who
otherwise
and federal
state
benefits to married couples
For instance
Yet by
effectively foreclosing
samesex
undermines the very aim of one of the
marriage namely family
bases for civil
MMA
of
sponsored healthcare benefits are available to
legally married couples but not unmarried partners
couples from obtaining
Pg 10
authorities regulated
and designate providers
would become wards of the state
governments
03 21 14
Cott testified that from the founding
the early years of the republic civil
households
Filed
also presented expert testimony that the
has historically promoted
through
Doc
central
stability
Cott further attested that there is no historical precedent for prohibiting marriages that are
incapable
state
of creating
the country
in
capacity
biological offspring
Cott indicated
or inclination
to
highlighted that sterility
marriage
Nor have
Examining the
or infertility
to
prerequisite
have never constituted
history of every
Tr
to
possess the
2 28 14 p 14
She
legal grounds for the annulment
women
that
or sterile
men
the inability
in any state including Michigan.
Id
at
15
to
of a
from marrying
have a child has
The Court finds Cott
her testimony great weight
the State of Michigan does not
for obtaining
marriage Cott
grounds for divorce Cott noted
be highly credible and accords
Even today
to
prohibited post menopausal
not been a ground of divorce
legal
none of them have ever required a couple
procreate as a prerequisite
states
historical
that
After surveying the domestic
a marriage license
As
make
fertility
defendant Lisa
county clerks are not authorized to consider a couples
10
stability
or the desire to have
Brown
testified
children
Michigan
criminal record ability to
procreate parenting
marriage license
residency
at
skills
Doc
151
or the potential
Brown Tr
Filed
Pg 11
of
31
Pg
ID 3954
future outcomes of their children before issuing a
3 3 14 pp 34 38 40
and whether
of the license applicants
03 21 14
County clerks may only evaluate the age and
either
of the applicants
is
currently married
Id
32 35
The Court
testified
who
finds
convincingly
Brown
to
be highly credible and gives her testimony great weight
county clerks in Michigan must issue a marriage license to any couple
that
age residency and
meet the sparse statutory requirements concerning
do not inquire about whether applicants intend
parenting
skills
or whether
they have
to raise
Mark Regnerus
Family Structures Study
Regneruss
NFSS a
assess adult outcomes of children
relationship with someone of the
15,000 participants
had been
in
same sex
who
MMA
whether they possess good
the state defendants first
project
years old
samesex
during the respondents
ranging in age from 18 to
that
was formulated
to
39
From
childhood
248 of them reported
this
that
sample 175 reported
years
one of
Of
their
that their
the
parents
mother had a
relationship while 73 reported that their father had been romantically
Under Michigan law the statutory requirements
applicable
to
those wishing to marry
1 be of the opposite sex 2 consent be married 3 not be

to one another
4 not already be married another person 5 be
18
16 years old with the consent of a parent or guardian and 6 pay 20 for a
to
to
at least
or at least
license from the clerk of the county
performed See
Once a
called
reported that one of their parents had been in a romantic
are minimal Applicants must

directly related
Clerks
testimony focused on the results of his 2012 New
survey data collection
such a romantic relationship
romantic
children
single status
a criminal record
In defense of their asserted justifications for the
sociologist
She
Mich Comp Laws
where either party resides or where the marriage will be

551.1 551.2 551.3 551.4 551.5 551.101 551.103
license is issued the marriage must be solemnized
with statutory
authority See
Mich Comp Laws
11
before two witnesses
551.7 551.9
and a person
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 12
31
of
Pg
ID 3955
subgroups
involved
with another
man
Regnerus then compared the adult outcomes of these two
who were
with another set of participants
outcomes of these groups were
Regnerus found
were
less
The
reported that their mothers had a
samesex
relationship
likely to pursue an education or obtain full time employment and more likely to be
unemployed
likely
who
biological parents
different
significantly
children
that
raised by intact
and receiving public assistance
to cheat on their partners or spouses
past
more likely
to
and more likely
Similarly Regnerus discovered
experience
to
who
sexual assault more
have been arrested
at
some
point in
reported that their fathers had a
nonminor
their
same sex
relationship
offenses and
were more likely
more
likely
to
pool of participants
study on several grounds
actually
raised in
revealed that
And many
First
samesex
many
of the participants
just over half
90
NFSS
it
samesex
This is because
romantic
never lived
children
voiced
raised by parents
those raised by intact
their
who
in
biological families
the participants
same sex
household
whose mother had
to
who
household
the
were
histories
relationships lasted for only brief periods of
samesex
concern that the
happened
criticized
measure the adult outcomes of children
failed to
of the 175 respondents
critics
plead guilty to
as one of the few studies to use a large
they did not live with both their mother and her
Second many
to
drawn from a random population based sample other
households
parental
have been arrested more likely
experts including Rosenfeld and Gates heavily
and demographic
sociological
children
have numerous sexual partners
Although Regnerus touted the
representative
to
that
engage
12
partner at the
Regnerus reported
same
of
same sex
Id
time.
an unfair comparison
some form
This is because
all
that
a lesbian relationship reported that
NFSS made
in
at
time
at
11
between
relationship and
almost all of the children
in the former
Doc
group were the offspring of a failed
measure of household
instability
Even Regnerus
acknowledged
and
parent
Moreover
that
that
151
Filed
heterosexual
prior
the limitations of the
any suboptimal outcomes
of the only
exact
two
may
who
of
31
Pg
ID 3956
significant
fluctuation
NFSS
In his expert report Regnerus
not be due to the sexual orientation of the
source of group differences
participants
Pg 13
union which produced a
and parental relationship
recognized
t he
03 21 14
unknown
are
Defs.
Ex
28
reported living with their mother and her
at
same sex
welladjusted
partner for their entire childhood
on most developmental
been in
or have
The Court
consideration
concocted
at
be gathered
and contemporary
there is no conclusive
testified that
in
Regnerus found each of them
samesex
in
at
demonstrated
trial
Mark Regnerus
moment
showing
is
Ex 9
this
found
it
study.
See
view
In the funders
time is of the essence.
in
child outcomes
Id Time was
April
2011 and when Dr Regnerus
Perry
Schwarzenegger
704
Nonetheless
child outcomes
Regnerus
parents are
Id
at
16
and not worthy of serious
was
hastily
essential that the necessary
data
the forum of public debate about what kinds of family
Pls.
that
Motion
in
the traditional understanding
limine to Exclude
Id The
to
counter the
Testimony of
many
published
2d 921
the
NFSS
in
2012 because
N D Cal 2010
13
studies
funder also stated that this is a project where
of the essence at the time of the funders
F Supp
of
the future of the institution of marriage at this
very uncertain and proper research was needed
no differences
11
his 2012 study
that
arrangement are best for society and which was confident
by
at
affect
testimony entirely unbelievable
the behest of a thirdparty funder which
the question
be comparatively
evidence that growing up in households wherein
The evidence adduced
marriage will be vindicated
Id
outcomes.
relationships does not adversely
finds Regneruss
to settle
to
comments
decisions
and Windsor
in
such as
United States
833
F Supp
2d 394
Doc
S D N Y 2012
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 14
were threatening the funders
of
31
Pg
ID 3957
concept of the
institution
of marriage.
While Regnerus maintained
that
the funding
source did not affect
the Court finds this testimony unbelievable
researcher
result and Regnerus obliged
NFSS
Additionally the
The funder clearly wanted a
is
types of family arrangements
as Regnerus equated being raised by a
had a romantic relationship
Regnerus
may
have found
same sex
ages
added
emphasis
on
flawed
study a large random sample of American young adults
different
face as
its
18 39
but in fact
it
in this
study, he certainly cannot purport
and severely
Regneruss
by other scholars and
has distanced
itself
same sex
questioned
many
APA
is
no wonder
NFSS
who
have undertaken a
to
samesex
the
NFSS
Dr
and
samesex
department
use hard outcome variables
that
at
the
Regneruss views
in
position statement
measured the outcomes of children
families often have
to
couples with
has been widely
couples family studies professor Loren Marks and economist
the research studies of
criminality or
did not study this at all
sociology
in particular
research studies that have
sample sizes rarely compared child outcomes
to
that
own
the validity of these studies in view of their statistical
testified that
and failed
that
from the
general and reaffirmed the aforementioned
raised by
raised in
with someone of the same sex for any length of time Whatever
It
In reviewing the
to
couple with having ever lived with a parent
those of children raised by heterosexual couples
University of Texas
certain
purported
it
who were
scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by
criticized
his impartiality as a
children
methodologies
relied
unemployment
14
Both witnesses
upon small self selecting
raised by intact
are easily to measured i
Joseph Price
heterosexual
couples
grade retention
In his testimony
Marks
Doc
151
lauded a
1996
03 21 14
Filed
Pg 15
of
31
Pg
ID 3958
study performed by Australian researcher Sotirios
Family Education and
Sarantakos entitled Children in Three Contexts
Social Development.
That study compared 58 children of heterosexual married parents 58 children of heterosexual
couples
cohabiting
and 58 children living with
teacher reported scholastic measures Defs.
controlling for
among
same sex
parents
studys
couples.
probative
76 By
at
16 38
at
was
intact
Sarantakos concluded
in
discrepancy
levels the study found
heterosexual
married parents and those
children of married heterosexual couples
on crossexamination Marks conceded
limited by the fact that most of the 58 children
at
some
earlier
time
in their
in
Id
at
76
lives
that
raised by
Marks Tr
and
the
same sex
3 5 14 pp 75
At several points in the study even Sarantakos acknowledged
family stability could
at
have accounted
evaluating
the statistical
the Rosenfeld study
population
was
samesex
was
that
for the differing levels of achievement
76 78
Price cited to his 2012 article authored with Douglas
study
testified that after
academic and social terms than children of cohabiting
17 However
parental divorce
between these groups Id
by
Marks
comparison none of the children raised by heterosexual married parents experienced
parental separation
this
Id
value
couples experienced
25
between children raised by
are more likely to do well at school
homosexual
Ex
couples across a wide spectrum of
other things parental income and education
significant differences
raised by
same sex
methodology
that
was flawed because
Rosenfeld used in his 2010 study
the results were statistically uncertain
too small to observe statistically
couples and those raised by heterosexual
problematic because
it
Allen and Catherine
couples
Pakaluk
in
Price opined that
and the sample
between children raised
Price also stated that Rosenfelds
controlled for family stability by restricting an analysis of
15
family structure
Doc
to families that have
151
Filed
03 21 14
not experience
Pg 16
d changes
of
31
Pg
for the previous
ID 3959
five years,
which eliminates one of the important channels through which the effect of family structure
Ex
to operate. Defs.
likely
27
28 By
at
expanding Rosenfelds
controlling for certain factors such as family stability
same sex
couples have
demonstrated
that
Prices study found that children
current social science
that
Tr
Douglas Allen
testified
about
his
own
Marks Tr
raised by heterosexual married couples and those raised by
rates
of young adults
samesex
couples
controlling for any particular factors Allen found that 72 percent of children
heterosexual
married households graduated from high school
raised in gay parent
homes and 52
households
in
because the study
their
One
relied
Allen could
childhood
many
or separated
Id
at
49
homes
of the young adults
Allen
Tr
raised in
Defs.
who
Ex
when
their
academic progress began to decline Allen
was
that
16
at
in
their
Similarly
during the 2006 Canadian
the young adult subjects progressed through
of the major limitations of Allens study
26
were living
36 14 pp 119 120
on a snap shot of the sample population
how
17 22
Without
2006 had previously lived in heterosexual households where
not gauge
years or
that
ages
as opposed to 60 percent of those
percent for those raised in lesbian
cross examination Allen conceded
parents had either divorced
Census
3 5 14 p 24
study using data from the 2006
Canadian Census which compared the high school graduation
same sex
same sex
3 5 14 pp 54 56
Economist
36 On
raised by
research has not
couples and those children raised by their heterosexual counterparts
Price
and
worse outcomes than children raised by heterosexual couples
noticeably
Ultimately both Marks and Price concluded
definitively
sample population
is
school during
Tr
3 6 14 p 120
he could not discern whether a
particular
Doc
151
young adults academic decline coincided
This led Allen to acknowledge
up
in
same sex
who
children
lived with
samesex
graduation
rates Allen
The Court was
among
group think,
accepted
that
parents in 2006. Defs.
that
sociologists and psychologists
it
of the 59 published
He
who
politically
in
which
it
concluded
of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged
children
of heterosexual
parents.
Marks
studies for their small sample sizes the
at
Id
emphasis
ID 3960
120 121
at
of growing
for those
added
significant difference
in
the importance
They along with Regnerus
the vast majority of their colleagues
Allen any significant
the overwhelming
endorse the no differences viewpoint as
correct
that
in
viewpoint that the majority has
Marks undertook
APA
n ot
an excruciatingly
in support of
its
2005 Brief
a single study has found
any significant respect
as well as Price and Allen faulted
non random
heterosexual comparison
be said of these witnesses
15
characterized
studies cited by the
children
Allen all failed to concede
Ex
Marks Price and
proper scientific scrutiny
to
on Lesbian and Gay Parenting,
research tool
Pg
marital status and five years of
unable to accord the testimony of
by which he said he meant a
lacked
31
3 6 14 pp 128 129
Tr
without subjecting
some
of
the household
in
there was no statistically
testimony is largely unbelievable
detailed examination
that
Pg 17
his paper does not study the effect
controlled for parental education
stability he discovered
consensus
with a separation
in a footnote
residential
Markss
03 21 14
household but rather examines the association of school performance
Moreover when Allen
weight
Filed
methods used
to
relative to
many
of these
obtain subjects and the fact
groups among other criticisms Marks Price and
of convenience
sampling as a social science
clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by
across a variety of social science fields
testimony is that the no differences consensus
17
The most
that
can
has not been proven
III
finds that the
legitimate state interest
MMA
whether the
jurisdiction
in
Ct 2566
Clause forbids a
473
U S 432 439
2012
2578
of the laws,
of
1985 On
state
ID 3961
raised by
children
the liberties
that
it
couples in
any conceivable
unnecessary to address
under the Due Process Clause
U S 439 445
the other
that
alike.
hand
states
Cleburne
are
Natl Fedn of
adopting
1988
right Cleveland
Bd
of
Educ
perform
Sebelius 132
1996 A
recognized
stating
La Fleur 414
to
which distinguish
U S 620 631
1987
its
Cleburne Living
Indep Bus
regulations
Evans 517
U S 78 95
in
reaching
and promotes the
empowered
the Supreme Court has repeatedly
Safley 482
that
marriage
the decision to
U S 632 639 640
is
one of
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Loving
U S 1 12
1967 same
Griswold
same
18
them.
U S Const amend XIV
protected
Virginia 388
same sex
from denying to any person within
which necessarily involves
right See Turner
a fundamental
stating
right
Assn 485
modern government,
The Court notes however
as a fundamental
is
the Court finds
of the necessity of deciding
between certain groups within society See Romer
1974
that
Pg
principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid
advance
Protection
of the vital functions
marry
31
Clause because the provision does not advance
all persons similarly situated should be treated
Inc
of
impermissibly discriminates against
Indian Cemetery Protective
questions
The Equal
MMA
In light of this determination
and longstanding
constitutional
evidence showing
burdens the exercise of a fundamental
Northwest
fundamental
many
Pg 18
Law
violation of the Equal Protection
Center
03 21 14
Legal Standards
The Court
ideal that
Filed
couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples
Conclusions of
See Lyng
151
not that there is any credible
with scientific certainty
same sex
Doc
Connecticut 381
U S 479 486
1965
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
balance must therefore be struck between equal protection
Pg 19
of
31
Pg
ID 3962
principles and the practicalities
of
governance
this
the United
scrutiny which
strict
States Supreme Court has fashioned
is
reserved for laws that discriminate
racial ethnic or religious minorities See Adarand
1995
216
form
applying
1944
strict
applying
against suspect
strict
scrutiny
Constructors Inc
scrutiny to racial classification Korematsu
to classification
inquiry is intermediate or heightened
of
a three tiered framework for
whether a provision of law offends the Equal Protection Clause The most rigorous
evaluating
is
end
tier
To
classes such as
Pena 515
States 323
United
based upon national origin
scrutiny which
U S 200
227
U S 214
more relaxed
courts have applied to laws that
quasisuspect
discriminate
against groups on the basis of gender alienage or illegitimacy also
See Clark
classes.
classification
1982
Jeter 486
U S 456 461
based upon illegitimacy Miss Univ for
applying
intermediate
basis review which
scrutiny
to
1988
applying
Women
as
intermediate scrutiny
Hogan 458
The
gender classification
known
least
to
U S 718 723 724
exacting tier is rational
assesses the propriety of legislation that does not implicate either suspect or
quasi suspect classes
In this case plaintiffs
testimony
about
bifurcate
to
the
trial
in
the event the Court decided to hear
classifications
The Court granted the motion although governing
scrutiny
consider
whether
moved
gay
Morgan County
held that a
same sex
Sixth Circuit precedent
lesbian bisexual or transgender persons to constitute
classes See Davis
Bd
more
Prison Health
of
Educ
470
Servs 679
F3d
F3d
250 261
433
438
6th Cir
are deserving of heightened
suspect or quasi suspect
6th Cir
2006
does not
2012
Scarborough
While some federal courts have
exacting level of scrutiny should be applied in reviewing the constitutionality
marriage
bans
see Windsor
United States 699
19
F3d 169
185
2d Cir 2012
of
Massachusetts
2012
manner
this
Bradley 440
F3d 425
432
U S 93 97
6th Cir
2012
rationality
2000
2000
facts that
508
it
is
MMA
F3d 1
682
MMA
Guzman
11
ID 3963
1st
Cir
proscribes conduct in a
purpose See
United States Dept of Homeland
Sec
a provision of law on equal
Kimel
also has no obligation
classifications
plaintiffs
to
Florida
Bd
of Regents
produce evidence
to
528
support the
and may rely entirely on rational speculation
or empirical data. Hadix
rational
a reviewing court can only
of legitimate purposes that
to
Johnson
230
refute any reasonably
basis for the classification.
FCC v
F3d 840
843
conceivable
Beach
6th Cir
state
of
Commcns Inc
1993
Asserted Reasons for the
the state defendants asserted that the
1 providing
Pg
does not survive even the most
MMA
Largely in keeping with the justifications offered in their
trial
31
of a legitimate governmental
actions were irrational.
incumbent upon
could provide
U S 307 313
the
Courts will not invalidate
The government
by any evidence
Rather
1979
of any combination
imposed
of its
unsupported
Human Servs
of
its varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated
conclude that the governments
84
Pg 20
e rational basis review
related to the achievement
grounds unless
the achievement
U S 62
03 21 14
standard the Court must determine whether the
that is rationally
protection
to
Filed
United States Dept of Health and
level of scrutiny i
Under
679
151
the Court need not decide the issue because
deferential
Vance
Doc
an optimal environment
MMA
serves the following
for child rearing
altering the traditional definition of marriage and
Additionally the state defendants consistently
2 proceeding
3 upholding
legitimate state interests
with caution before
tradition
and morality
asserted that defining marriage is within the
20
at
purview of the
exclusive
states
rational basis for adopting
1
The
premise
state
The Court
power
rejects this
raised by
of these proffered reasons provides
rationale
at trial
31
Pg
MMA
of Michigan adopted the
the optimal environment
ID 3964
on the
for raising children
disproved
this
premise
In fact the difference
study shows that
Rosenfelds
couples progress at almost the same rate through
studies of children raised by
school as children
between the two groups
approximately 150 sociological
that
samesex
fare
worse than those raised
parental gender plays a limited role
Tr
Brodzinsky
2 25 14 p 78 He
couples have repeatedly
in
is
any
if
key
we
warmth
Then were going
Its
and
raised in
Brodzinsky also
well adjusted children
the quality of parenting
we
women
two
are present
listed
health good parent child relationships what

is
nearly
confirmed
households
in producing
there husband or wife two
single parent as long as the factors that
style which
heterosexual
is
stated that
not the gender of the parent thats the
being offered by whoever
at
of
for several reasons
adduced
samesex
households
testified that
Id
Pg 21
findings that there is simply no scientific basis to conclude that children
Rosenfelds
Its
None
married couples provide
immeasurable Brodzinsky similarly testified
same sex
03 21 14
amendment
psychological
Filed
defendants argued that the citizens
First the evidence
children
police
151
Optimal Environment
heterosexual
that
the
Doc
call
an authoritative
stimulation structure and the availability
to have a child
who
is
much more
likely
to
men
good
thats
mental
parenting
of resources
be healthy
78 79
In response
state
defendants cited a small number of outlier studies in support of the
optimal child rearing rationale
In an effort to
fare worse than those raised by heterosexual
show
that
couples the
21
children
state
raised by
defendants
same sex
relied
couples
principally
upon
Regneruss
NFSS
The
the fact that
many
incidents
eg
divorce
samesex
households
same sex
that
raised by
samesex
31
Pg
efforts
failure
to
ID 3965
were
account for
households experienced
NFSS
Regneruss
prior
placed in the foster
poor school performance could
result
from a
study also suffered from
who
were actually
In short the isolated studies cited by the state defendants do not
support the argument that children raised by heterosexual
children
of
or separation or were initially
or parental separation
failed to
it
Pg 22
Census study but these
raised in
Both researchers acknowledged
childs exposure to divorce
raised in
who were
of the subjects
another defect in that
03 21 14
Filed
flaw of the Regnerus and Allen studies was the
of family instability
care system
151
study and Allens 2006 Canadian
common
unavailing
Doc
To
couples
couples have
outcomes than
better
the overwhelming weight
the contrary
of the scientific
evidence supports the no differences viewpoint
Second
the optimal child rearing justification for the
The
marriage requirements
do not include the
prerequisites
or
if
does not allow for the annulment
the family structure
Third contrary
potential
for childhood
plaintiffs
die or
to
to
or
if
incapacitated
make
legal
a prolonged and complicated
to raise
them
certain outcomes for children
of a marriage once
the couples
destabilization
become
under Michigan law to
changes
is
the surviving
decisions
guardianship
in
any
By
do poorly
MMA
the
in this particular
non legal
in
particular
own
family
the same token
a couple discovers
children
contentions
For instance
belied by the states
a marriage license under Michigan law
to have children a requirement
ability
structure or the prospect of achieving
state
for obtaining
MMA
it
the
cannot conceive
school
actually
fosters
the
case should either of the
parent would have
no authority
on behalf of the surviving children without resorting
proceeding
22
And
in
the event
that
a state court
were to award guardianship
would have
151
Filed
of the surviving children to the
Fourth the
that
heterosexual
state
them of social
children raised by
samesex
with
formal education.
indicator of future success
racial
to
school
groups.
is
Id Taking
Ex
as the study
greater in the
this
the exclusion
explain
outcomes
US
31
at
5 A
showed
why
for children
children
Rosenfelds
to
sub optimal
of Asian descent
dictate
its
is
rural
to
another predictive
logical conclusion
of all other
the empirical
suburban dwelling married Asians may
Obviously the
which groups
23
study
compared
than for children
is
state
has not adopted
selfevident
Optimal
may marry
Finally the Court rejects the optimal environment justification
same sex
raised by
whose
According
The absurdity of such a requirement
by prohibiting
Even
the probability of making good progress
couples
of all other heterosexual
legally
are sub optimal compared to couples
position to
academic outcomes for children cannot logically
simply not advanced
Michigan law does not
childs racial background
that
policy and with good reason
in
outperformed those children raised by
evidence at hand should require that only rich educated
marry to
places such children
middle class and poor families are
Pls.
of an
the challenge
families and couples with less formal education
more
through
fail
have had sub optimal developmental
Likewise
ID 3966
parent the guardianship
couples fare worse than children
married couples the state defendants
and urban residents
to
Pg
capital.
raised by suburban residents academically
well off
non legal
31
of
position suffers from a glaring inconsistency
defendants
similarly exclude certain classes of heterosexual
persistently
Pg 23
be renewed annually and would remain susceptible
to
situation and deprives
precarious
children
03 21 14
party at any time This as Brodzinsky testified
interested
assuming
Doc
because
As
that
goal is
Gates testified there
are thousands of
same sex
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 24
of
31
Pg
ID 3967
couples currently raising thousands of children in Michigan
and these
numbers have steadily increased over the past 20 years Prohibiting gays and lesbians from
Nor does
marrying does not stop them from forming families and raising children
prohibiting
samesex
same sex
marriage increase the
raised by heterosexual parents
number
of heterosexual
There is in short no
marriage and providing children
marriages or the number of children
logical
connection
between banning
with an optimal environment or achieving
optimal
outcomes.
2
Throughout
in
proceeding
same sex
the trial
with caution
the state defendants asserted
that Michigan has a legitimate interest
before altering the traditional definition of marriage
experts all concluded
defendants
With Caution
Proceeding
that
couples to marry because
it
is
too soon to understand the societal
further study is required
The
state
impact of allowing
This wait and see
justification
is
not persuasive
Legislatures
decisions
more
related
and regulatory agencies
why
when
they are decided after an open debate
federal administrative agencies must provide
period before exercising their rulemaking authority
conducted
is
and
legislators
fundamentally altered
constitutional
1963
when postponing
to issues of public importance as matters of public policy are resolved with
candor and insight
This is
often cite to such reasoning
must deliberate
when
sufficient
the public with a notice and
facts
comment
Hearings must be held studies must be
These things necessarily take time But the calculus
constitutional rights are implicated because
rights calls for prompt rectification.
The basic guarantees
based on
Watson
Memphis 373
of our Constitution are warrants
24
any deprivation
of
U S 526 532 533
for the here and
now and
unless
there is an overwhelmingly
may
not shield itself
takes
Doc
03 21 14
Filed
compelling reason they are
with the wait
plodding and deliberative
its
151
and see
course
to
be promptly
approach and
Were
Pg 25
sit
idly
of
31
interest in
proceeding
2013
U S Dist LEXIS
some
rationale
77
at
beyond merely asserting
one way or another See Perry 704
D Utah
the Court to accept
that
F Supp
Dec 20 2013
this
position it would turn
2d
972
at
quoting
the state can plead
Herbert
Rather the
state
while social science research
with caution in almost any setting. Kitchen
179331
ID 3968
Id The
fulfilled.
the rational basis analysis into a toothless and perfunctory review because
an
Pg
No 13 217
state
must have
evidence to decide an issue
Romer
for the proposition that
andsee
e ven
under the most deferential standard of review
relation between the classification
approach
fails
to
meet
this
preserving
justification
is
adopted and the object to be attained.
most basic threshold
traditional
two fold
and see
approach
v Doe
509
it
have noted
is
moral disapproval
U S 312 326
relationships
1993
On
not a sufficient rationale
on equal protection
grounds See Massachusetts
F3d 1
2012
1st Cir
underlying contention
The
difficulty
stating
that
the
with this
a ncient
notions of marriage are often enmeshed with the moral disapproval
samesex
15
immunity from attack for lacking a rational basis.
redefining marriage to encompass
that
is
First the Supreme Court has held that tradition alone does not satisfy
lineage of a legal concept does not give
traditional
the wait
cannot pass the rational basis test
marriage is a legitimate goal in and of itself
rational basis review See Heller
Second
it
Since
the
Tradition and Morality
Implicit in the wait
that
the court must insist on knowing
U S Dept
this
of
point many federal courts
for upholding
of Health
and
a provision of law
Human Servs
invalidating section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act because
25
682
the
statute
Doc
expressed a moral disapproval
U S Dist LEXIS
justification
26236
Bishop
Okla Jan 14 2014
48 49
at
approved the
who
cast their
MMA
Since
viewpoints
2014
who
of equal protection
plaintiffs
179331
539
amend I
2003
No 13 0982
2014
4374
at
101
ND
it
Nonetheless
to
or enforcing
As
Perry 704
79
same
that
the
is
of each individual
voter
cannot ascribe such motivations to the
Many
their
Michigan residents have
daily lives and inform their
these views cannot strip other citizens of the
law
whether
at
is
by animus towards lesbian gay bisexual and
approved the measure
under the
secular purpose.
U S 558 571
ID 3969
attorneys contended
The same Constitution
that
protects
the free
solemnize certain marriages rather than others
the same Constitution that prevents the state from either mandating
accompanying
Pg
morality as a
U S Dist LEXIS
whose principles govern the conduct of
about marriage
U S Const
31
Perry
the Court is unable discern the intentions
exercise of ones faith in deciding
religion
of
rejecting
U S Dist LEXIS
and closing remarks
ballot in favor of the measure
religious convictions
guarantees
2013
were motivated
approximately 2.7 million voters
own
No 04 848
Pg 26
De Leon
W D Tex Feb 26 2014
Kitchen
In delivering their opening
who
03 21 14
that upholding one particular moral definition of marriage
not a permissible justification.
voters
Filed
of homosexuality
United States
stating
151
adherence
is
to an established
private moral or religious beliefs without an
F Supp
2d
at
930 931
citing
Lawrence
Texas
a result tradition and morality are not rational bases for the
MMA
4
Federalism
Citing to the Supreme Courts decision
in
Windsor
26
the state defendants maintain that the
Doc
authority to define marriage falls
151
03 21 14
Filed
Amendment
1971
Nelson 291 Minn 310
Windsor
marry The
right to
year
following
samesex
that
Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial
U S 810
1972
The
state
defendants have
argued
Pg
the Minnesota
couples have
a single sentence
in
31
of
ID 3970
and inherent powers of the state
within the exclusive
Forty years before the Supreme Court decided
held in Baker
Pg 27
In
Supreme Court
no Fourteenth
the United States Supreme
federal question. Baker
Nelson 409
the present case that Baker is binding
in
precedent
The answer
to this
Dist LEXIS 179331
T he
argument was ably articulated
Supreme
Court has
stated
a summary dismissal
that
binding when doctrinal developments
Miranda 422
Here
U S 332 344
indicate otherwise. Hicks
men
apply to gay
in
the Courts analysis
and lesbians
has
demonstrate
that
the
Courts
any precedential effect today
if
little
Not only was Baker decided before the Supreme Court held
a quasi suspect
1976
197
classification
Frontiero
op
plurality
but
see Craig
Richardson
also
Clause and the Due Process Clause as
summary dismissal in Baker
is
not
is
1975
of both the Equal Protection

they
by Judge Shelby in Kitchen
23 26
at
before
Boren 429
US
411
Court
the
677
sex
that
U S 190
1973
688
recognized
the
that
Constitution protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of

sexual
1996
orientation
Moreover Baker was
Lawrence
in
demean
destiny
558
in
the
Texas
2003
578
that
existence
by making
their
As
was
of gay
men
and
below
justification
same sex
is
of lawsuits
the
because
to
to
their
US
Courts decision
could formerly cite as
the Courts decision in Windsor does not

reasoning is nevertheless
its
therefore a significant doctrinal

that
reach
its
development
and lower federal courts raising the
in state
samesex
dissenting justices
Court declined
a state
marriage
question of a states ability to prohibit
was noted by two
for
a crime. 539
Supreme
the
that states
Importantly the Windsor Court foresaw

a number
635636
private sexual conduct
As discussed above
620
unconstitutional
answer the question presented here but

highly relevant
US
Evans 517
decided before the Supreme Court held

it
discussed
Lawrence removes a
a reason to prohibit
See Romer
It
is
marriage a
standing
27
to
that
also notable that while
the merits in Hollingsworth
the petitioners lacked
fact
pursue
the
Perry
appeal the
2013
US
finding section 3 of
The
recognition
applicable
287
in
DOMA
to
151
unconstitutional
Filed
the Windsor
residents and citizens
Each
The
the states expansive
has
its
limits
power
law
relations
its
US
borders The definition of
p rotection
of offspring property
of marital responsibilities. Ibid
While the
justices
the realm of domestic relations they also noted
in
ID 3971
that
North Carolina 317
defendants gloss over one important caveat
state
Pg
of the States broader authority to regulate the subject
interests and the enforcement
2691
31
of
has a rightful and legitimate concern
the marital status of persons domiciled within
of domestic relations with respect to the
at
Pg 28
Court acknowledged
See Williams
as a sovereign
state
marriage is the foundation
Id
03 21 14
marriages is central to state domestic
of civil
its
1942
298
Doc
Writing for the majority Justice
Kennedy
recognized
that this
stated that domestic relations
power
laws
defining and regulating marriage of course must respect the constitutional rights of persons
but subject to those guarantees
regarded as a virtually
omitted and
to
that
exclusive
t he
states
one
district
astutely remarked
Bishop 2014
overturned
province
of the states,
Id
U S Dist LEXIS
Loving has profound
of domestic
interest
constitutional guarantees
regulation
at
2692
federal
that
Loving
has long been
internal quotations
is subject
These statements are not merely surplusage and as
to Loving
is
a disclaimer of enormous proportion.
implications for this litigation
not
citing
an area
66
at
Court did
id
is
in defining and regulating the marital relation
citation
4374
relations
statutes
dismiss the
case
prohibiting
outright
In that case the Supreme Court
interracial
for lack
they
of a substantial
U S 133 S Ct 2652
question See
marriage because
2013
Given
the Supreme Courts disposition of both Windsor and Perry the court
finds that there is no longer any doubt that the issue currently before
the court in this lawsuit presents a substantial question of federal
The Court
finds this reasoning
longer has any precedential
law
persuasive and adopts the above quoted passage
effect
28
in
full
Baker no
violated
just
are reserved to the States. Kitchen
omitted
as ineffectual
decisions
This position which
now
as
domestic
its
was
it
in
Loving
relations
Further the Court
marriage possesses
popular origin of the
scrutiny
As
t he
MMA
air
some
of political
and
officials
Pg
ID 3972
right
to life
179331
83 84
at
again in the present case is
that
overriding legitimate interest the state
to
Having failed
families out of existence
marriage the
Michigans
it
MMA
to
cannot stand
traditional
of
definition
was approved by
voter referendum
insulate the provision from constitutional
once wrote
of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the
controversy to place
establish
to
same sex
does nothing
Ones
31
the Court rejected Virginias
U S Dist LEXIS
of legitimacy because
H Jackson
Justice Robert
vicissitudes
and
so
of
Taken together both the Windsor and Loving
the contention
rejects
a heightened
2013
authority to legislate
establish such an interest in the context of
The
In doing
Pg 29
the state defendants advance
stand for the proposition that without
cannot use
03 21 14
Filed
under the Constitution the regulation and control of marital and family
that
relationships
citation
151
substantive
argument
Doc
them as
legal
them beyond the reach of majorities
principles to be applied by the courts
liberty and property to free speech
worship and assembly and other fundamental
rights
a free press freedom
may
of
not be submitted to
West
Virginia
Bd
Wiesenfeld 420
incorporated
legal
of
Ed v
Barnette 319
U S 636 638
within the Fifth
1975
U S 624 638
stating
Amendments Due
authority that entitles a ballot approved
constitutional
question
On
that
review
is
eg
Weinberger
Clause The Court
measure to special deference
in
is
v
is
not aware of any
the event
it
the contrary
whether passed by the people or
necessary
see
the right to equal protection
Process
the Supreme Court has clearly stated that if

Constitution
1943
to preserve the rule of law
29
an enactment violates the

their
representatives
t he
electorate
US
judicial
cannot order a
raises a
violation of the
otherwise
just
Due
IV
03 21 14
Filed
not avoid
their
Pg 30
of
31
Pg
Clauses by referendum
application
ID 3973
or
by deferring to the
citizens
citing Cleburne 473
2013
US
at
U S Dist LEXIS
448
179550
27 28 S D
at
In view of the foregoing
authority cannot trump federal constitutional
Ohio
the states domestic
limitations
Conclusion
In attempting
40
its
may
v Wymyslo No 13 0501
Dec 23 2013
relations
151
Process or Equal Protection
as the state
wishes or objections of
Obergefell
Doc
state
could
ever fully
ensure that the state
being raised by
grow up
may
convey the personal
no longer impair the
samesex
couples
It
is
sacrifice
rights
No
is
a step in that direction
of their children
of their
own
that
who
seek
these children
family and
and affirms the enduring principle
2 25 14 p
to
and the thousands of others
hope
Windsor 133
Tr
court record of this
of these two plaintiffs
the Courts fervent
families in their community and in their daily lives.
decision
to the will of the people,
defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about people
proceeding
now
to define this case as a challenge
Ct
that
at
its
will
concord with other
2694
Todays
regardless of whoever
finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority the guarantee of equal protection
must
prevail
Accordingly
IT IS
HEREBY DECLARED
implementing
the Fourteenth
statutes
that
Amendment
to
Article
25 of the Michigan Constitution and
because they
violate
30
its
Clause of
IT IS
Article
FURTHER
Doc
ORDERED
151
that
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 31
of
the State of Michigan is enjoined
its
31
Pg
ID 3974
from enforcing
Bernard
BERNARD
A Friedman
A FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated
March 21 2014
Detroit Michigan
31
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
lake
law works
MIsaak
com
Sent
3 21 2014 3 23 35
Subject
RE
Attachments
213772631
Here
multco us
Jennifer
Middleton
Joyce Anna
kdiaz
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
aclu or org
PM
com
NYTimes
com
perkinscoie
katevts
Michigan
Doboer Findings

of
of
Is
Struck
Down
Law pdf
decision
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
sheila
works
March 21
potter
com
katevts
2014 3 19 PM
doj state or us
multco
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Jennifer
TRJohnson
Middleton
perkinscoie
us
NYTimes com
comcast
Sent by uncleannie3
Is Struck
Is Struck
Down
Down
net

Marriage Is Struck
Down
BY ERIK ECKHOLM
federal
say
Or copy and paste

http
To
get
nyti
ms
it
is
this

unconstitutional
URL
into
to
New
your browser
1evyFOj
unlimited
access
all
York Times
articles
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
To ensure
delivery
to
your
inbox
please add
nytdirect
ADVERTISEMENT
nytimes
com
to
your address book
com
lake
law
Copyright
2014

York
NY 10018
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
Pg
1 of 31
ID 3944

SOUTHERN DIVISION
APRIL
DEBOER
and next friend of

minors and
N D R R D R and
JAYNE
ROWSE
and
DR
and as parent
individually
DR
individually
and
ND R RD R
minors
Civil Action
Plaintiffs
No 12 CV10285
HON BERNARD
A FRIEDMAN
vs
RICHARD SNYDER
Governor
BILL
in
his official
SCHUETTE
his official
in
capacity
as
and
capacity
as
Defendants
FINDINGS
Plaintiffs
April
plaintiffs
hereinafter
Amendment
or
that
challenge
prohibits
MMA
Plaintiffs
maintain that the
Fourteenth
Amendment
same sex
marriage
Mich Const Art I
25 The
shall
a November 2004
MMA
man
and one
woman
in
marriage
violates
the
Due
Clauses of the
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
county
from enforcing
officials
Doc
151
Filed
the provision and
03 21 14 Pg
its
involved
MMA
and
is
2 of 31
after
Pg
ID 3945
considering
all
of the legal issues
and will enjoin
unconstitutional
its
enforcement
samesex
I
Background
The
Park Michigan
and
jointly
own
their
neonatal intensive
residence
2011 DeBoer
plaintiffs
In
and Rowse
initially
24 Mich Comp Laws

claimed
a nurse in the
Unable to
710.24 which
restricts
section 24 violates
Henry
In April
Code
that
hereinafter
the Court
section
adoptions
among
at
jointly
that
is
to
DeBoer
filed
Plaintiffs
is
November 2009 Rowse
couples
2011
In October
adopted child
They have
are an unmarried
Plaintiffs
In response
Clause because
it
moved
lacked standing
to
bring suit
General
The defendants in
Bill
Schuette
County Clerk
successor
in
Bill
this
office defendant
Lisa
plaintiffs
Brown
who was
Although Brown
legal position
challenging
Richard
Plaintiffs
Snyder and Attorney
later
eventually
is
named
the
replaced by his
as a defendant
MMA
in this
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
The Court
Doc
while plaintiffs
enforcement
made
standing
claim
a colorable
24
of section
Rather
that
to
the
Plaintiffs
were
plaintiffs
The
state
The
to
seek leave
amend
to
their
accepted
objection
the validity of the
MMA
in
that
that
because they
MMA
The Court
decision
its
samesex
with biologically
that
the
in United
connected
role
this
time
to
dismiss the amended
States
after
the United
S Ct 2675
Windsor 133
2013
DOMA
summary judgment
The
defendants
state
2 avoiding
3 upholding
complaint
development
MMA
their
amend
motion
then renewed their
defendants
children
The Court noted
in
ID 3946
MMA
States
24
section
samesex
complaint
challenge
to
Pg
3 of 31
plaintiffs
form of
legal
grounds
03 21 14 Pg
ineligibility
challenge
Filed
plaintiffs
151
tradition
the unintended
consequences
and morality and
that
that
4 promoting
Assuming
1 providing
that
might
result
the transition
the appropriate
level
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
their
Pg
4 of 31
raised triable
that plaintiffs
MMA
entitlement to
ID 3947
summary judgment
As a
II
Trial Proceedings
whether the
conduct
in
MMA
survives
a manner
the Court directed
rational
basis review
Findings of Fact
words does
In other
that is rationally
the
MMA
proscribe
purpose
Plaintiffs
David Brodzinsky as
called psychologist
parenting
Ex
30
at
raised by
that
34
Nor
is
same sex
in
their
parents
t he
warmth and
nurturance
opportunities
are provided
rules
characteristics
sic
that
testified that
Tr
The
for the child

is
And
ability
to
between the
employ age
that
2 25 14 pp 69 70
are
are afforded
Brodzinsky
parents Id
development
from the outside
in
the developmental
and structure
that children
testified that
difference
appropriate
He
the
witness
their first
And
of
the parents
position Brodzinsky
at
78 79
What
require parent role
matters is the
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
same sex
parenting
same sex
recognizing
become a
fact
of
for
03 21 14 Pg
Id
at
Id
78
many American
investing
Filed
thats
has
151
life
Doc
at
Pg
5 of 31
ID 3948
children
and
that
legally
that
by promoting family
stability
and
136
research studies
selfselecting
are statistically
convenience
commonly
use convenience
because they
in
in
studies.
tool
affecting
same sex
unreliable because
their
that
their
scientific
raised by
samesex
that
there is no
The Court
weight
He
testified
couples
convincingly
that
and gives
it
considerable
sexual orientation
credible
was
skills
is
unrelated
not in any
way
to the persons
same sex
gender or
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
social science
research
convenience
studies.
butter of
reliable
many
if
different
Doc
upon which
151
As Brodzinsky and
03 21 14 Pg
are based
his opinions
as occurred
Filed
come
and the
largely from
socalled
results
by
replicated
different
sample groups
Sociologist Michael
Rosenfeld supported
this
conclusion
to
School,
samesex
raised by
children
ID 3949
others testified
research
Pg
6 of 31
income
samesex
education
cohabiting
same sex
couples
Regarding couple
break up
stability
rates
same
Rosenfeld
than heterosexual
rate
as children
testified that
married couples
samesex
1990s
However
studies measuring
unions demonstrated
with heterosexual
married couples
among
cohabiting
recognized
unions exhibit the
same
same sex
union
in
the 1980s and
longevity rates
that
form of
that
same sex
couples was on par
same sex
couples in legally
married
counterparts
Although he
testified
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
the comparable
regarding
recognized
that
a small
Rosenfeld referred
to
Doc
number
of detractors have
that
critiqued
this
argument
uncertainty
at trial
by showing
data indicated
that
Pg
7 of 31
ID 3950
couples Rosenfeld
his research
In particular
Rosenfelds
who
same sex
criticized
methodology he used
the statistical
that
that
Rosenfelds
03 21 14 Pg
Filed
children
151
results
in
his 2010 study
Rosenfeld responded
exhibits Rosenfeld
demonstrative
showed
statistical
the results of
and income levels
that
to
samesex
be held back
that in
in
The Court
the children
shows
of heterosexual
heterosexual
couples
and sociological
Rosenfelds
study
that
children
to
Rosenfeld
fields
showed
this
This finding led
of
samesex
him
to
conclude
Rosenfeld
Tr
and gives
2 25 14 p 82
it
great weight
samesex
associations in the
that
children
According
married couples.
The Court
couples
psychological
samesex
of heterosexual
finds Rosenfelds
is
of
in
school
is statistically
same sex
insignificant
couples
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
ID 3951
organization
in this
whose focus
country
data
Pg
8 of 31
is
the
concluded
children
that
these
children
are not
expressing
for parenting
support
Medical
Association
Psychiatric
Psychiatry
National
Association
of Social
American
of Pediatrics
American
of
Association
Child Welfare
Workers and
by
fostering
to
Academy
Psychoanalytic
Association
to
Organizations
and or
adoption
American Academy
American
Psychological
households
but are not limited
compared
disadvantaged
parent
lesbian
the data
League
American
of
America
Institute
Pls.
Ex
30
shown
unrelated
likely
that
to
unanimously voted
same sex
professor
Vivek Sankaran
to
18 Moreover
testified that
the
are burdensome
welfare to file
non legal
once the
non legal
parent
111
MMA
at
destabilizes
commences
status
finality
every year
a guardianship
to that
if
raised by
Sankaran
over the
until
the child turns
proceeding
there is no
petition
children
and often lack
review a
the child
Ex
of children is
her to adopt
well being
such circumstances
that in
are required
in
Law
stated
APA
Association
has
21
at
interest
permit him or
in the childs
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Sankaran
interests
a neighbor
teacher
Should the
Doc
testified that
non legal
claims to have
of
Tr
interest in
in
Human
file
an
any delay
parent encounter
03 21 14 Pg
Filed
who
or anyone
151
left
distant
Services
DHS
for at least
some
In this event
parents
foster
According
interests
non legal
to
Sankaran
the
non legal
to
have
far
non legal
parent
testified
and are
convincingly
at risk
same sex
that
children
DHS
is
authorized
non legal
to
parent and
non legal
to
become a
licensed
Gary Gates
testified
could
that
currently
Tr
2 27 14 p 29
being raised by
samesex
that
and gives
it
great weight
He
Denying
on such couples
credible
finds Sankarans
period of time
The Court
initiate
parent would have
samesex
could
required
of the child
place
relative
ID 3952
the child.
pursuing
2 26 14 pp 120 121
Pg
9 of 31
children
The
testimony of Gates
same sex
whom the
of this effect
couples
by noting
that
5,300 children
in
Michigan
Plaintiffs
151
Historian
Nancy
legitimate children
furthered
Social Security
many
historical
these benefits the
MMA
31
Pg
to
ID 3953
of the colonies
care for dependents
century the
who
otherwise
and federal
state
For instance
Yet by
samesex
bases for civil
MMA
of
Pg 10
governments
03 21 14
households
Filed
through
Doc
central
stability
incapable
state
of creating
the country
in
capacity
Cott indicated
or inclination
to
marriage
Nor have
Examining the
or infertility
to
prerequisite
history of every
Tr
to
possess the
2 28 14 p 14
She
women
that
or sterile
men
the inability
Id
at
15
to
of a
from marrying
have a child has
for obtaining
marriage Cott
Even today
to
legal
states
historical
that
a marriage license
As
make
fertility
defendant Lisa
10
stability
Brown
testified
children
Michigan
procreate parenting
marriage license
residency
at
skills
Doc
151
or the potential
Brown Tr
Filed
Pg 11
of
31
Pg
ID 3954
3 3 14 pp 34 38 40
and whether
03 21 14
either
of the applicants
is
currently married
Id
32 35
The Court
testified
who
finds
convincingly
Brown
to
that
age residency and
parenting
skills
or whether
they have
to raise
Mark Regnerus
Regneruss
NFSS a
15,000 participants
had been
in
same sex
who
MMA
project
years old
samesex
that
was formulated
to
39
From
childhood
this
that
sample 175 reported
years
one of
Of
their
that their
the
parents
mother had a
applicable
to

to one another
18
to
to
at least
or at least
performed See
Once a
called

directly related
Clerks
romantic
children
single status
a criminal record
sociologist
She
Mich Comp Laws

551.1 551.2 551.3 551.4 551.5 551.101 551.103
with statutory
authority See
Mich Comp Laws
11
551.7 551.9
and a person
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 12
31
of
Pg
ID 3955
subgroups
involved
with another
man
who were
Regnerus found
were
less
The
samesex
relationship
unemployed
likely
who
biological parents
different
significantly
children
that
raised by intact
past
more likely
to
and more likely
experience
to
who
sexual assault more
have been arrested
at
some
point in
nonminor
their
same sex
relationship
offenses and
were more likely
more
likely
to
actually
raised in
revealed that
And many
First
samesex
many
of the participants
just over half
90
NFSS
it
samesex
This is because
romantic
never lived
children
voiced
raised by parents
their
who
in
biological families
the participants
same sex
household
whose mother had
to
who
household
the
were
histories
samesex
concern that the
happened
criticized
failed to
critics
plead guilty to
Second many
to
households
parental
and demographic
sociological
children
representative
to
that
engage
12
partner at the
Regnerus reported
same
of
same sex
Id
time.
some form
This is because
all
that
NFSS made
in
at
time
at
11
between
relationship and
in the former
Doc
instability
Even Regnerus
acknowledged
and
parent
Moreover
that
that
151
Filed
heterosexual
prior
of the only
exact
two
may
who
of
31
Pg
ID 3956
significant
fluctuation
NFSS
participants
Pg 13
recognized
t he
03 21 14
unknown
are
Defs.
Ex
28
at
same sex
welladjusted
been in
or have
The Court
consideration
concocted
at
be gathered
and contemporary
testified that
in
samesex
in
at
demonstrated
trial
Mark Regnerus
moment
showing
is
Ex 9
this
found
it
study.
See
view
In the funders
in
child outcomes
Id Time was
April
Perry
Schwarzenegger
704
Nonetheless
child outcomes
Regnerus
parents are
Id
at
16
was
hastily
data
Pls.
that
Motion
in
limine to Exclude
Id The
to
counter the
Testimony of
many
published
2d 921
the
NFSS
in
2012 because
N D Cal 2010
13
studies
F Supp
of
no differences
11
his 2012 study
that
by
at
affect
the question
be comparatively
Id
outcomes.
finds Regneruss
to settle
to
comments
decisions
and Windsor
in
such as
United States
833
F Supp
2d 394
Doc
S D N Y 2012
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 14
of
31
Pg
ID 3957
concept of the
institution
of marriage.
that
the funding
researcher
NFSS
Additionally the
is
Regnerus
may
have found
same sex
ages
added
emphasis
on
flawed
different
face as
its
18 39
but in fact
it
in this
and severely
Regneruss
has distanced
itself
same sex
questioned
many
APA
is
no wonder
NFSS
who
have undertaken a
to
samesex
the
NFSS
Dr
and
samesex
department
that
at
the
Regneruss views
in
position statement
families often have
to
couples with
has been widely
criminality or
sociology
in particular
to
that
own
testified that
and failed
that
from the
raised by
raised in
It
In reviewing the
to
University of Texas
certain
purported
it
who were
criticized
children
methodologies
relied
unemployment
14
Both witnesses
raised by intact
Joseph Price
heterosexual
couples
grade retention
In his testimony
Marks
Doc
151
lauded a
1996
03 21 14
Filed
Pg 15
of
31
Pg
ID 3958
Social Development.
couples
cohabiting
controlling for
among
same sex
parents
studys
couples.
probative
76 By
at
16 38
at
was
intact
in
discrepancy
heterosexual
at
some
earlier
time
in their
in
Id
at
76
lives
that
raised by
Marks Tr
and
the
same sex
3 5 14 pp 75
at
have accounted
evaluating
the statistical
the Rosenfeld study
population
was
samesex
was
that
76 78
study
17 However
parental divorce
by
Marks
parental separation
this
Id
value
couples experienced
25
homosexual
Ex
raised by
same sex
methodology
that
was flawed because
problematic because
it
Allen and Catherine
couples
Pakaluk
in
Price opined that
and the sample
15
family structure
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
not experience
Pg 16
d changes
of
31
Pg
for the previous
ID 3959
five years,
Ex
to operate. Defs.
likely
27
28 By
at
same sex
couples have
demonstrated
that
that
Tr
Douglas Allen
testified
about
his
own
Marks Tr
rates
of young adults
samesex
couples
heterosexual
homes and 52
households
in
because the study
their
One
relied
Allen could
childhood
many
or separated
Id
at
49
homes
of the young adults
Allen
Tr
raised in
Defs.
who
Ex
when
their
was
that
16
at
in
their
Similarly
26
were living
36 14 pp 119 120
how
17 22
Without
not gauge
years or
that
ages
Census
3 5 14 p 24
same sex
same sex
3 5 14 pp 54 56
Economist
36 On
raised by
research has not
Price
and
noticeably
definitively
sample population
is
school during
Tr
3 6 14 p 120
particular
Doc
151
up
in
same sex
who
children
lived with
samesex
graduation
rates Allen
The Court was
among
group think,
accepted
that
that
it
of the 59 published
He
who
politically
in
which
it
concluded
children
of heterosexual
parents.
Marks
at
Id
emphasis
ID 3960
120 121
at
of growing
for those
added
in
the importance
the overwhelming
correct
that
in
Marks undertook
APA
n ot
an excruciatingly
in support of
its
2005 Brief
non random
15
characterized
children
Ex
Marks Price and
to
research tool
Pg
lacked
31
3 6 14 pp 128 129
Tr
without subjecting
some
of
the household
in
that
Pg 17
consensus
with a separation
in a footnote
residential
Markss
03 21 14
Moreover when Allen
weight
Filed
methods used
to
relative to
many
of these
of convenience
17
The most
that
can
has not been proven
III
finds that the
MMA
whether the
jurisdiction
in
Ct 2566
Clause forbids a
473
U S 432 439
2012
2578
of the laws,
of
1985 On
state
ID 3961
raised by
children
the liberties
that
it
couples in
any conceivable
U S 439 445
the other
that
alike.
hand
states
Cleburne
are
Natl Fedn of
adopting
1988
right Cleveland
Bd
of
Educ
perform
Sebelius 132
1996 A
recognized
stating
La Fleur 414
to
which distinguish
U S 620 631
1987
its
Cleburne Living
Indep Bus
regulations
Evans 517
U S 78 95
in
reaching
and promotes the
empowered
Safley 482
that
marriage
the decision to
U S 632 639 640
is
one of
U S 1 12
1967 same
Griswold
same
18
them.
U S Const amend XIV
protected
Virginia 388
same sex
right See Turner
a fundamental
stating
right
Assn 485
modern government,
as a fundamental
is
the Court finds
1974
that
Pg
advance
Protection
marry
31
Inc
of
questions
The Equal
MMA
and longstanding
constitutional
evidence showing
Northwest
fundamental
many
Pg 18
Law
Center
03 21 14
Legal Standards
The Court
ideal that
Filed
Conclusions of
See Lyng
151
same sex
Doc
Connecticut 381
U S 479 486
1965
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 19
of
31
Pg
ID 3962
of
governance
this
the United
scrutiny which
strict
is
1995
216
form
applying
1944
strict
applying
against suspect
strict
scrutiny
Constructors Inc
to classification
of
evaluating
is
end
tier
To
classes such as
Pena 515
States 323
United
scrutiny which
U S 200
227
U S 214
more relaxed
quasisuspect
discriminate
See Clark
classes.
classification
1982
Jeter 486
U S 456 461
applying
intermediate
basis review which
scrutiny
to
1988
applying
Women
as
Hogan 458
The
known
least
to
U S 718 723 724
testimony
about
bifurcate
to
the
trial
in
classifications
scrutiny
consider
whether
moved
gay
Morgan County
held that a
same sex
classes See Davis
Bd
more
Prison Health
of
Educ
470
Servs 679
F3d
F3d
250 261
433
438
6th Cir
6th Cir
2006
does not
2012
Scarborough
marriage
bans
see Windsor
United States 699
19
F3d 169
185
2d Cir 2012
of
Massachusetts
2012
manner
this
Bradley 440
F3d 425
432
U S 93 97
6th Cir
2012
rationality
2000
2000
facts that
508
it
is
MMA
F3d 1
682
MMA
Guzman
11
ID 3963
1st
Cir
purpose See
Sec
Kimel
classifications
plaintiffs
to
Florida
Bd
of Regents
produce evidence
to
528
support the
rational
to
Johnson
230
FCC v
F3d 840
843
conceivable
Beach
6th Cir
state
of
Commcns Inc
1993
1 providing
Pg
MMA
trial
31
incumbent upon
could provide
U S 307 313
the
The government
by any evidence
Rather
1979
of any combination
imposed
of its
unsupported
Human Servs
of
84
Pg 20
grounds unless
the achievement
U S 62
03 21 14
that is rationally
protection
to
Filed
level of scrutiny i
Under
679
151
deferential
Vance
Doc
MMA
for child rearing
2 proceeding
3 upholding
with caution before
tradition
and morality
20
at
purview of the
exclusive
states
1
The
premise
state
The Court
power
rejects this
raised by
rationale
at trial
31
Pg
MMA
ID 3964
on the
disproved
this
premise
study shows that
Rosenfelds
school as children
that
samesex
fare
Tr
Brodzinsky
2 25 14 p 78 He
in
is
any
if
key
we
warmth
Then were going
Its
and
raised in
Brodzinsky also
we
women
two
are present
listed

is
nearly
confirmed
households
in producing
style which
heterosexual
is
stated that
at
of
for several reasons
adduced
samesex
households
testified that
Id
Pg 21
Rosenfelds
Its
None
same sex
03 21 14
amendment
psychological
Filed
First the evidence
children
police
151
Optimal Environment
heterosexual
that
the
Doc
call
an authoritative
to have a child
who
is
much more
likely
to
men
good
thats
mental
parenting
of resources
be healthy
78 79
In response
state
In an effort to
show
that
couples the
21
children
state
raised by
defendants
same sex
relied
couples
principally
upon
Regneruss
NFSS
The
the fact that
many
incidents
eg
divorce
samesex
households
same sex
that
raised by
samesex
31
Pg
efforts
failure
to
ID 3965
were
account for
NFSS
Regneruss
prior
result
from a
who
were actually
children
of
failed to
it
Pg 22
raised in
raised in
who were
of the subjects
03 21 14
Filed
care system
151
common
unavailing
Doc
To
couples
couples have
outcomes than
better
the contrary
of the scientific
Second
The
do not include the
prerequisites
or
if
Third contrary
potential
for childhood
plaintiffs
die or
to
to
or
if
incapacitated
make
legal
to raise
them
of a marriage once
the couples
destabilization
become
changes
is
the surviving
decisions
guardianship
in
any
By
do poorly
MMA
the
in this particular
non legal
in
particular
own
family
the same token
a couple discovers
children
contentions
For instance
ability
state
for obtaining
MMA
it
the
cannot conceive
school
actually
fosters
the
parent would have
no authority
proceeding
22
And
in
the event
that
a state court
would have
151
Filed
Fourth the
that
heterosexual
state
them of social
children raised by
samesex
with
formal education.
racial
to
school
groups.
is
Id Taking
Ex
as the study
greater in the
this
the exclusion
explain
outcomes
US
31
at
5 A
showed
why
for children
children
Rosenfelds
to
sub optimal
of Asian descent
dictate
its
is
rural
to
another predictive
logical conclusion
of all other
the empirical
Obviously the
which groups
23
study
compared
than for children
is
state
has not adopted
selfevident
Optimal
may marry
same sex
raised by
whose
According
by prohibiting
Even
couples
legally
position to
simply not advanced
that
in
marry to
Pls.
of an
the challenge
more
through
fail
Likewise
ID 3966
and urban residents
to
Pg
capital.
well off
non legal
31
of
defendants
persistently
Pg 23
to
precarious
children
03 21 14
interested
assuming
Doc
because
As
that
goal is
are thousands of
same sex
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 24
of
31
Pg
ID 3967
and these
Nor does
prohibiting
samesex
same sex
number
of heterosexual
logical
connection
between banning
optimal
outcomes.
2
Throughout
in
proceeding
same sex
the trial
with caution
defendants
With Caution
Proceeding
that
it
is
The
state
impact of allowing
This wait and see
justification
is
not persuasive
Legislatures
decisions
more
related
why
when
conducted
is
and
legislators
constitutional
1963
when postponing
candor and insight
This is
must deliberate
when
sufficient
facts
comment
based on
Watson
Memphis 373
24
any deprivation
of
U S 526 532 533
for the here and
now and
unless
may
not shield itself
takes
Doc
03 21 14
Filed
with the wait
its
151
and see
course
to
be promptly
approach and
Were
Pg 25
sit
idly
of
31
interest in
proceeding
2013
U S Dist LEXIS
some
rationale
77
at
D Utah
the Court to accept
that
F Supp
Dec 20 2013
this
2d
972
at
quoting
the state can plead
Herbert
Rather the
state
179331
ID 3968
Id The
fulfilled.
an
Pg
No 13 217
state
must have
Romer
andsee
e ven
approach
fails
to
meet
this
preserving
justification
is
traditional
two fold
and see
approach
v Doe
509
it
have noted
is
moral disapproval
U S 312 326
relationships
1993
On
on equal protection
F3d 1
2012
1st Cir
The
difficulty
stating
that
the
with this
a ncient
samesex
15
that
is
traditional
the wait
Second
it
Since
the
that
U S Dept
this
of
for upholding
of Health
and
a provision of law
Human Servs
25
682
the
statute
Doc
U S Dist LEXIS
justification
26236
Bishop
Okla Jan 14 2014
48 49
at
approved the
who
cast their
MMA
Since
viewpoints
2014
who
of equal protection
plaintiffs
179331
539
amend I
2003
No 13 0982
2014
4374
at
101
ND
it
Nonetheless
to
or enforcing
As
Perry 704
79
same
that
the
is
of each individual
voter
Many
their
law
whether
at
is
under the
secular purpose.
U S 558 571
ID 3969
attorneys contended
that
protects
the free
accompanying
Pg
morality as a
U S Dist LEXIS
about marriage
U S Const
31
Perry
religion
of
rejecting
U S Dist LEXIS
and closing remarks
guarantees
2013
were motivated
own
No 04 848
Pg 26
De Leon
W D Tex Feb 26 2014
Kitchen
who
03 21 14
voters
Filed
of homosexuality
United States
stating
151
adherence
is
to an established
F Supp
2d
at
930 931
citing
Lawrence
Texas
MMA
4
Federalism
in
Windsor
26
Doc
151
03 21 14
Filed
Amendment
1971
Nelson 291 Minn 310
Windsor
marry The
right to
year
following
samesex
that
U S 810
1972
The
state
defendants have
argued
Pg
the Minnesota
couples have
a single sentence
in
31
of
ID 3970
held in Baker
Pg 27
In
Supreme Court
no Fourteenth
Nelson 409
in
precedent
The answer
to this
Dist LEXIS 179331
T he
Supreme
Court has
stated
a summary dismissal
that
Miranda 422
Here
U S 332 344
men
apply to gay
in
the Courts analysis
and lesbians
has
demonstrate
that
the
Courts
if
little
a quasi suspect
1976
197
classification
Frontiero
op
plurality
but
see Craig
Richardson
also
is
not
is
1975

they
23 26
at
before
Boren 429
US
411
Court
the
677
sex
that
U S 190
1973
688
recognized
the
that

sexual
1996
orientation
Moreover Baker was
Lawrence
in
demean
destiny
558
in
the
Texas
2003
578
that
existence
by making
their
As
was
of gay
men
and
below
justification
same sex
is
of lawsuits
the
because
to
to
their
US
Courts decision

its

that
reach
its
development
in state
samesex
dissenting justices
Court declined
a state
marriage
was noted by two
for
a crime. 539
Supreme
the
that states

a number
635636
As discussed above
620
unconstitutional

highly relevant
US
Evans 517

it
discussed
Lawrence removes a
See Romer
It
is
marriage a
standing
27
to
that
fact
pursue
the
Perry
appeal the
2013
US
The
recognition
applicable
287
in
DOMA
to
151
unconstitutional
Filed
the Windsor
Each
The
has
its
limits
power
law
relations
its
US
p rotection
While the
justices
in
ID 3971
that
North Carolina 317
state
Pg
2691
31
of
at
Pg 28
Court acknowledged
See Williams
as a sovereign
state
Id
03 21 14
of civil
its
1942
298
Doc
Kennedy
recognized
that this
power
laws
omitted and
to
that
exclusive
t he
states
one
district
astutely remarked
Bishop 2014
overturned
province
of the states,
Id
U S Dist LEXIS
Loving has profound
of domestic
interest
regulation
at
2692
federal
that
Loving
has long been
internal quotations
is subject
to Loving
is
not
citing
an area
66
at
Court did
id
is
citation
4374
relations
statutes
dismiss the
case
prohibiting
outright
interracial
for lack
they
of a substantial
U S 133 S Ct 2652
question See
marriage because
2013
Given
The Court
law
effect
28
in
full
Baker no
violated
just
omitted
as ineffectual
decisions
This position which
now
as
domestic
its
was
it
in
Loving
relations
Further the Court
marriage possesses
scrutiny
As
t he
MMA
air
some
of political
and
officials
Pg
ID 3972
right
to life
179331
83 84
at
that
to
Having failed
marriage the
Michigans
it
MMA
to
cannot stand
traditional
of
definition
was approved by
voter referendum
once wrote
establish
to
same sex
does nothing
Ones
31
U S Dist LEXIS
H Jackson
Justice Robert
vicissitudes
and
so
of
the contention
rejects
a heightened
2013
The
In doing
Pg 29
cannot use
03 21 14
Filed
that
relationships
citation
151
substantive
argument
Doc
them as
legal
rights
may
of
not be submitted to
West
Virginia
Bd
Wiesenfeld 420
incorporated
legal
of
Ed v
Barnette 319
U S 636 638
within the Fifth
1975
U S 624 638
stating
Amendments Due
constitutional
question
On
that
review
is
eg
Weinberger
Clause The Court
in
is
v
is
not aware of any
the event
it
the contrary
necessary
see
Process

Constitution
1943
29

their
representatives
t he
electorate
US
judicial
cannot order a
raises a
violation of the
otherwise
just
Due
IV
03 21 14
Filed
not avoid
their
Pg 30
of
31
Pg
application
ID 3973
or
by deferring to the
citizens
citing Cleburne 473
2013
US
at
U S Dist LEXIS
448
179550
27 28 S D
at
Ohio
the states domestic
limitations
Conclusion
In attempting
40
its
may
Dec 23 2013
relations
151
as the state
Obergefell
Doc
state
could
ever fully
being raised by
grow up
may
convey the personal
samesex
couples
It
is
sacrifice
rights
No
is
of their children
of their
own
that
who
seek
these children
family and
2 25 14 p
to
hope
Windsor 133
Tr
the Courts fervent
decision
proceeding
now
Ct
that
at
its
will
concord with other
2694
Todays
must
prevail
Accordingly
IT IS
HEREBY DECLARED
implementing
the Fourteenth
statutes
that
Amendment
to
Article
because they
violate
30
its
Clause of
IT IS
Article
FURTHER
Doc
ORDERED
151
that
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 31
of
its
31
Pg
ID 3974
from enforcing
Bernard
BERNARD
A Friedman
A FRIEDMAN

Dated
March 21 2014
Detroit Michigan
31
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
lake
law works
MIsaak
com
Sent
3 21 2014 3 23 35
Subject
RE
Attachments
213772631
Here
multco us
Jennifer
Middleton
Joyce Anna
kdiaz
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
aclu or org
PM
com
NYTimes
com
perkinscoie
katevts
Michigan
Doboer Findings

of
of
Is
Struck
Down
Law pdf
decision
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
sheila
works
March 21
potter
com
katevts
2014 3 19 PM
doj state or us
multco
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Jennifer
TRJohnson
Middleton
perkinscoie
us
NYTimes com
comcast
Sent by uncleannie3
Is Struck
Is Struck
Down
Down
net

Marriage Is Struck
Down
BY ERIK ECKHOLM
federal
say
Or copy and paste

http
To
get
nyti
ms
it
is
this

unconstitutional
URL
into
to
New
your browser
1evyFOj
unlimited
access
all
York Times
articles
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
To ensure
delivery
to
your
inbox
please add
nytdirect
ADVERTISEMENT
nytimes
com
to
your address book
com
lake
law
Copyright
2014

York
NY 10018
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
Pg
1 of 31
ID 3944

SOUTHERN DIVISION
APRIL
DEBOER
and next friend of

minors and
N D R R D R and
JAYNE
ROWSE
and
DR
and as parent
individually
DR
individually
and
ND R RD R
minors
Civil Action
Plaintiffs
No 12 CV10285
HON BERNARD
A FRIEDMAN
vs
RICHARD SNYDER
Governor
BILL
in
his official
SCHUETTE
his official
in
capacity
as
and
capacity
as
Defendants
FINDINGS
Plaintiffs
April
plaintiffs
hereinafter
Amendment
or
that
challenge
prohibits
MMA
Plaintiffs
maintain that the
Fourteenth
Amendment
same sex
marriage
Mich Const Art I
25 The
shall
a November 2004
MMA
man
and one
woman
in
marriage
violates
the
Due
Clauses of the
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
county
from enforcing
officials
Doc
151
Filed
the provision and
03 21 14 Pg
its
involved
MMA
and
is
2 of 31
after
Pg
ID 3945
considering
all
of the legal issues
and will enjoin
unconstitutional
its
enforcement
samesex
I
Background
The
Park Michigan
and
jointly
own
their
neonatal intensive
residence
2011 DeBoer
plaintiffs
In
and Rowse
initially
24 Mich Comp Laws

claimed
a nurse in the
Unable to
710.24 which
restricts
section 24 violates
Henry
In April
Code
that
hereinafter
the Court
section
adoptions
among
at
jointly
that
is
to
DeBoer
filed
Plaintiffs
is
November 2009 Rowse
couples
2011
In October
adopted child
They have
are an unmarried
Plaintiffs
In response
Clause because
it
moved
lacked standing
to
bring suit
General
The defendants in
Bill
Schuette
County Clerk
successor
in
Bill
this
office defendant
Lisa
plaintiffs
Brown
who was
Although Brown
legal position
challenging
Richard
Plaintiffs
Snyder and Attorney
later
eventually
is
named
the
replaced by his
as a defendant
MMA
in this
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
The Court
Doc
while plaintiffs
enforcement
made
standing
claim
a colorable
24
of section
Rather
that
to
the
Plaintiffs
were
plaintiffs
The
state
The
to
seek leave
amend
to
their
accepted
objection
the validity of the
MMA
in
that
that
because they
MMA
The Court
decision
its
samesex
with biologically
that
the
in United
connected
role
this
time
to
dismiss the amended
States
after
the United
S Ct 2675
Windsor 133
2013
DOMA
summary judgment
The
defendants
state
2 avoiding
3 upholding
complaint
development
MMA
their
amend
motion
then renewed their
defendants
children
The Court noted
in
ID 3946
MMA
States
24
section
samesex
complaint
challenge
to
Pg
3 of 31
plaintiffs
form of
legal
grounds
03 21 14 Pg
ineligibility
challenge
Filed
plaintiffs
151
tradition
the unintended
consequences
and morality and
that
that
4 promoting
Assuming
1 providing
that
might
result
the transition
the appropriate
level
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
their
Pg
4 of 31
raised triable
that plaintiffs
MMA
entitlement to
ID 3947
summary judgment
As a
II
Trial Proceedings
whether the
conduct
in
MMA
survives
a manner
the Court directed
rational
basis review
Findings of Fact
words does
In other
that is rationally
the
MMA
proscribe
purpose
Plaintiffs
David Brodzinsky as
called psychologist
parenting
Ex
30
at
raised by
that
34
Nor
is
same sex
in
their
parents
t he
warmth and
nurturance
opportunities
are provided
rules
characteristics
sic
that
testified that
Tr
The
for the child

is
And
ability
to
between the
employ age
that
2 25 14 pp 69 70
are
are afforded
Brodzinsky
parents Id
development
from the outside
in
the developmental
and structure
that children
testified that
difference
appropriate
He
the
witness
their first
And
of
the parents
position Brodzinsky
at
78 79
What
require parent role
matters is the
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
same sex
parenting
same sex
recognizing
become a
fact
of
for
03 21 14 Pg
Id
at
Id
78
many American
investing
Filed
thats
has
151
life
Doc
at
Pg
5 of 31
ID 3948
children
and
that
legally
that
by promoting family
stability
and
136
research studies
selfselecting
are statistically
convenience
commonly
use convenience
because they
in
in
studies.
tool
affecting
same sex
unreliable because
their
that
their
scientific
raised by
samesex
that
there is no
The Court
weight
He
testified
couples
convincingly
that
and gives
it
considerable
sexual orientation
credible
was
skills
is
unrelated
not in any
way
to the persons
same sex
gender or
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
social science
research
convenience
studies.
butter of
reliable
many
if
different
Doc
upon which
151
As Brodzinsky and
03 21 14 Pg
are based
his opinions
as occurred
Filed
come
and the
largely from
socalled
results
by
replicated
different
sample groups
Sociologist Michael
Rosenfeld supported
this
conclusion
to
School,
samesex
raised by
children
ID 3949
others testified
research
Pg
6 of 31
income
samesex
education
cohabiting
same sex
couples
Regarding couple
break up
stability
rates
same
Rosenfeld
than heterosexual
rate
as children
testified that
married couples
samesex
1990s
However
studies measuring
unions demonstrated
with heterosexual
married couples
among
cohabiting
recognized
unions exhibit the
same
same sex
union
in
the 1980s and
longevity rates
that
form of
that
same sex
couples was on par
same sex
couples in legally
married
counterparts
Although he
testified
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
the comparable
regarding
recognized
that
a small
Rosenfeld referred
to
Doc
number
of detractors have
that
critiqued
this
argument
uncertainty
at trial
by showing
data indicated
that
Pg
7 of 31
ID 3950
couples Rosenfeld
his research
In particular
Rosenfelds
who
same sex
criticized
methodology he used
the statistical
that
that
Rosenfelds
03 21 14 Pg
Filed
children
151
results
in
his 2010 study
Rosenfeld responded
exhibits Rosenfeld
demonstrative
showed
statistical
the results of
and income levels
that
to
samesex
be held back
that in
in
The Court
the children
shows
of heterosexual
heterosexual
couples
and sociological
Rosenfelds
study
that
children
to
Rosenfeld
fields
showed
this
This finding led
of
samesex
him
to
conclude
Rosenfeld
Tr
and gives
2 25 14 p 82
it
great weight
samesex
associations in the
that
children
According
married couples.
The Court
couples
psychological
samesex
of heterosexual
finds Rosenfelds
is
of
in
school
is statistically
same sex
insignificant
couples
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
ID 3951
organization
in this
whose focus
country
data
Pg
8 of 31
is
the
concluded
children
that
these
children
are not
expressing
for parenting
support
Medical
Association
Psychiatric
Psychiatry
National
Association
of Social
American
of Pediatrics
American
of
Association
Child Welfare
Workers and
by
fostering
to
Academy
Psychoanalytic
Association
to
Organizations
and or
adoption
American Academy
American
Psychological
households
but are not limited
compared
disadvantaged
parent
lesbian
the data
League
American
of
America
Institute
Pls.
Ex
30
shown
unrelated
likely
that
to
unanimously voted
same sex
professor
Vivek Sankaran
to
18 Moreover
testified that
the
are burdensome
welfare to file
non legal
once the
non legal
parent
111
MMA
at
destabilizes
commences
status
finality
every year
a guardianship
to that
if
raised by
Sankaran
over the
until
the child turns
proceeding
there is no
petition
children
and often lack
review a
the child
Ex
of children is
her to adopt
well being
such circumstances
that in
are required
in
Law
stated
APA
Association
has
21
at
interest
permit him or
in the childs
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Sankaran
interests
a neighbor
teacher
Should the
Doc
testified that
non legal
claims to have
of
Tr
interest in
in
Human
file
an
any delay
parent encounter
03 21 14 Pg
Filed
who
or anyone
151
left
distant
Services
DHS
for at least
some
In this event
parents
foster
According
interests
non legal
to
Sankaran
the
non legal
to
have
far
non legal
parent
testified
and are
convincingly
at risk
same sex
that
children
DHS
is
authorized
non legal
to
parent and
non legal
to
become a
licensed
Gary Gates
testified
could
that
currently
Tr
2 27 14 p 29
being raised by
samesex
that
and gives
it
great weight
He
Denying
on such couples
credible
finds Sankarans
period of time
The Court
initiate
parent would have
samesex
could
required
of the child
place
relative
ID 3952
the child.
pursuing
2 26 14 pp 120 121
Pg
9 of 31
children
The
testimony of Gates
same sex
whom the
of this effect
couples
by noting
that
5,300 children
in
Michigan
Plaintiffs
151
Historian
Nancy
legitimate children
furthered
Social Security
many
historical
these benefits the
MMA
31
Pg
to
ID 3953
of the colonies
care for dependents
century the
who
otherwise
and federal
state
For instance
Yet by
samesex
bases for civil
MMA
of
Pg 10
governments
03 21 14
households
Filed
through
Doc
central
stability
incapable
state
of creating
the country
in
capacity
Cott indicated
or inclination
to
marriage
Nor have
Examining the
or infertility
to
prerequisite
history of every
Tr
to
possess the
2 28 14 p 14
She
women
that
or sterile
men
the inability
Id
at
15
to
of a
from marrying
have a child has
for obtaining
marriage Cott
Even today
to
legal
states
historical
that
a marriage license
As
make
fertility
defendant Lisa
10
stability
Brown
testified
children
Michigan
procreate parenting
marriage license
residency
at
skills
Doc
151
or the potential
Brown Tr
Filed
Pg 11
of
31
Pg
ID 3954
3 3 14 pp 34 38 40
and whether
03 21 14
either
of the applicants
is
currently married
Id
32 35
The Court
testified
who
finds
convincingly
Brown
to
that
age residency and
parenting
skills
or whether
they have
to raise
Mark Regnerus
Regneruss
NFSS a
15,000 participants
had been
in
same sex
who
MMA
project
years old
samesex
that
was formulated
to
39
From
childhood
this
that
sample 175 reported
years
one of
Of
their
that their
the
parents
mother had a
applicable
to

to one another
18
to
to
at least
or at least
performed See
Once a
called

directly related
Clerks
romantic
children
single status
a criminal record
sociologist
She
Mich Comp Laws

551.1 551.2 551.3 551.4 551.5 551.101 551.103
with statutory
authority See
Mich Comp Laws
11
551.7 551.9
and a person
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 12
31
of
Pg
ID 3955
subgroups
involved
with another
man
who were
Regnerus found
were
less
The
samesex
relationship
unemployed
likely
who
biological parents
different
significantly
children
that
raised by intact
past
more likely
to
and more likely
experience
to
who
sexual assault more
have been arrested
at
some
point in
nonminor
their
same sex
relationship
offenses and
were more likely
more
likely
to
actually
raised in
revealed that
And many
First
samesex
many
of the participants
just over half
90
NFSS
it
samesex
This is because
romantic
never lived
children
voiced
raised by parents
their
who
in
biological families
the participants
same sex
household
whose mother had
to
who
household
the
were
histories
samesex
concern that the
happened
criticized
failed to
critics
plead guilty to
Second many
to
households
parental
and demographic
sociological
children
representative
to
that
engage
12
partner at the
Regnerus reported
same
of
same sex
Id
time.
some form
This is because
all
that
NFSS made
in
at
time
at
11
between
relationship and
in the former
Doc
instability
Even Regnerus
acknowledged
and
parent
Moreover
that
that
151
Filed
heterosexual
prior
of the only
exact
two
may
who
of
31
Pg
ID 3956
significant
fluctuation
NFSS
participants
Pg 13
recognized
t he
03 21 14
unknown
are
Defs.
Ex
28
at
same sex
welladjusted
been in
or have
The Court
consideration
concocted
at
be gathered
and contemporary
testified that
in
samesex
in
at
demonstrated
trial
Mark Regnerus
moment
showing
is
Ex 9
this
found
it
study.
See
view
In the funders
in
child outcomes
Id Time was
April
Perry
Schwarzenegger
704
Nonetheless
child outcomes
Regnerus
parents are
Id
at
16
was
hastily
data
Pls.
that
Motion
in
limine to Exclude
Id The
to
counter the
Testimony of
many
published
2d 921
the
NFSS
in
2012 because
N D Cal 2010
13
studies
F Supp
of
no differences
11
his 2012 study
that
by
at
affect
the question
be comparatively
Id
outcomes.
finds Regneruss
to settle
to
comments
decisions
and Windsor
in
such as
United States
833
F Supp
2d 394
Doc
S D N Y 2012
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 14
of
31
Pg
ID 3957
concept of the
institution
of marriage.
that
the funding
researcher
NFSS
Additionally the
is
Regnerus
may
have found
same sex
ages
added
emphasis
on
flawed
different
face as
its
18 39
but in fact
it
in this
and severely
Regneruss
has distanced
itself
same sex
questioned
many
APA
is
no wonder
NFSS
who
have undertaken a
to
samesex
the
NFSS
Dr
and
samesex
department
that
at
the
Regneruss views
in
position statement
families often have
to
couples with
has been widely
criminality or
sociology
in particular
to
that
own
testified that
and failed
that
from the
raised by
raised in
It
In reviewing the
to
University of Texas
certain
purported
it
who were
criticized
children
methodologies
relied
unemployment
14
Both witnesses
raised by intact
Joseph Price
heterosexual
couples
grade retention
In his testimony
Marks
Doc
151
lauded a
1996
03 21 14
Filed
Pg 15
of
31
Pg
ID 3958
Social Development.
couples
cohabiting
controlling for
among
same sex
parents
studys
couples.
probative
76 By
at
16 38
at
was
intact
in
discrepancy
heterosexual
at
some
earlier
time
in their
in
Id
at
76
lives
that
raised by
Marks Tr
and
the
same sex
3 5 14 pp 75
at
have accounted
evaluating
the statistical
the Rosenfeld study
population
was
samesex
was
that
76 78
study
17 However
parental divorce
by
Marks
parental separation
this
Id
value
couples experienced
25
homosexual
Ex
raised by
same sex
methodology
that
was flawed because
problematic because
it
Allen and Catherine
couples
Pakaluk
in
Price opined that
and the sample
15
family structure
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
not experience
Pg 16
d changes
of
31
Pg
for the previous
ID 3959
five years,
Ex
to operate. Defs.
likely
27
28 By
at
same sex
couples have
demonstrated
that
that
Tr
Douglas Allen
testified
about
his
own
Marks Tr
rates
of young adults
samesex
couples
heterosexual
homes and 52
households
in
because the study
their
One
relied
Allen could
childhood
many
or separated
Id
at
49
homes
of the young adults
Allen
Tr
raised in
Defs.
who
Ex
when
their
was
that
16
at
in
their
Similarly
26
were living
36 14 pp 119 120
how
17 22
Without
not gauge
years or
that
ages
Census
3 5 14 p 24
same sex
same sex
3 5 14 pp 54 56
Economist
36 On
raised by
research has not
Price
and
noticeably
definitively
sample population
is
school during
Tr
3 6 14 p 120
particular
Doc
151
up
in
same sex
who
children
lived with
samesex
graduation
rates Allen
The Court was
among
group think,
accepted
that
that
it
of the 59 published
He
who
politically
in
which
it
concluded
children
of heterosexual
parents.
Marks
at
Id
emphasis
ID 3960
120 121
at
of growing
for those
added
in
the importance
the overwhelming
correct
that
in
Marks undertook
APA
n ot
an excruciatingly
in support of
its
2005 Brief
non random
15
characterized
children
Ex
Marks Price and
to
research tool
Pg
lacked
31
3 6 14 pp 128 129
Tr
without subjecting
some
of
the household
in
that
Pg 17
consensus
with a separation
in a footnote
residential
Markss
03 21 14
Moreover when Allen
weight
Filed
methods used
to
relative to
many
of these
of convenience
17
The most
that
can
has not been proven
III
finds that the
MMA
whether the
jurisdiction
in
Ct 2566
Clause forbids a
473
U S 432 439
2012
2578
of the laws,
of
1985 On
state
ID 3961
raised by
children
the liberties
that
it
couples in
any conceivable
U S 439 445
the other
that
alike.
hand
states
Cleburne
are
Natl Fedn of
adopting
1988
right Cleveland
Bd
of
Educ
perform
Sebelius 132
1996 A
recognized
stating
La Fleur 414
to
which distinguish
U S 620 631
1987
its
Cleburne Living
Indep Bus
regulations
Evans 517
U S 78 95
in
reaching
and promotes the
empowered
Safley 482
that
marriage
the decision to
U S 632 639 640
is
one of
U S 1 12
1967 same
Griswold
same
18
them.
U S Const amend XIV
protected
Virginia 388
same sex
right See Turner
a fundamental
stating
right
Assn 485
modern government,
as a fundamental
is
the Court finds
1974
that
Pg
advance
Protection
marry
31
Inc
of
questions
The Equal
MMA
and longstanding
constitutional
evidence showing
Northwest
fundamental
many
Pg 18
Law
Center
03 21 14
Legal Standards
The Court
ideal that
Filed
Conclusions of
See Lyng
151
same sex
Doc
Connecticut 381
U S 479 486
1965
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 19
of
31
Pg
ID 3962
of
governance
this
the United
scrutiny which
strict
is
1995
216
form
applying
1944
strict
applying
against suspect
strict
scrutiny
Constructors Inc
to classification
of
evaluating
is
end
tier
To
classes such as
Pena 515
States 323
United
scrutiny which
U S 200
227
U S 214
more relaxed
quasisuspect
discriminate
See Clark
classes.
classification
1982
Jeter 486
U S 456 461
applying
intermediate
basis review which
scrutiny
to
1988
applying
Women
as
Hogan 458
The
known
least
to
U S 718 723 724
testimony
about
bifurcate
to
the
trial
in
classifications
scrutiny
consider
whether
moved
gay
Morgan County
held that a
same sex
classes See Davis
Bd
more
Prison Health
of
Educ
470
Servs 679
F3d
F3d
250 261
433
438
6th Cir
6th Cir
2006
does not
2012
Scarborough
marriage
bans
see Windsor
United States 699
19
F3d 169
185
2d Cir 2012
of
Massachusetts
2012
manner
this
Bradley 440
F3d 425
432
U S 93 97
6th Cir
2012
rationality
2000
2000
facts that
508
it
is
MMA
F3d 1
682
MMA
Guzman
11
ID 3963
1st
Cir
purpose See
Sec
Kimel
classifications
plaintiffs
to
Florida
Bd
of Regents
produce evidence
to
528
support the
rational
to
Johnson
230
FCC v
F3d 840
843
conceivable
Beach
6th Cir
state
of
Commcns Inc
1993
1 providing
Pg
MMA
trial
31
incumbent upon
could provide
U S 307 313
the
The government
by any evidence
Rather
1979
of any combination
imposed
of its
unsupported
Human Servs
of
84
Pg 20
grounds unless
the achievement
U S 62
03 21 14
that is rationally
protection
to
Filed
level of scrutiny i
Under
679
151
deferential
Vance
Doc
MMA
for child rearing
2 proceeding
3 upholding
with caution before
tradition
and morality
20
at
purview of the
exclusive
states
1
The
premise
state
The Court
power
rejects this
raised by
rationale
at trial
31
Pg
MMA
ID 3964
on the
disproved
this
premise
study shows that
Rosenfelds
school as children
that
samesex
fare
Tr
Brodzinsky
2 25 14 p 78 He
in
is
any
if
key
we
warmth
Then were going
Its
and
raised in
Brodzinsky also
we
women
two
are present
listed

is
nearly
confirmed
households
in producing
style which
heterosexual
is
stated that
at
of
for several reasons
adduced
samesex
households
testified that
Id
Pg 21
Rosenfelds
Its
None
same sex
03 21 14
amendment
psychological
Filed
First the evidence
children
police
151
Optimal Environment
heterosexual
that
the
Doc
call
an authoritative
to have a child
who
is
much more
likely
to
men
good
thats
mental
parenting
of resources
be healthy
78 79
In response
state
In an effort to
show
that
couples the
21
children
state
raised by
defendants
same sex
relied
couples
principally
upon
Regneruss
NFSS
The
the fact that
many
incidents
eg
divorce
samesex
households
same sex
that
raised by
samesex
31
Pg
efforts
failure
to
ID 3965
were
account for
NFSS
Regneruss
prior
result
from a
who
were actually
children
of
failed to
it
Pg 22
raised in
raised in
who were
of the subjects
03 21 14
Filed
care system
151
common
unavailing
Doc
To
couples
couples have
outcomes than
better
the contrary
of the scientific
Second
The
do not include the
prerequisites
or
if
Third contrary
potential
for childhood
plaintiffs
die or
to
to
or
if
incapacitated
make
legal
to raise
them
of a marriage once
the couples
destabilization
become
changes
is
the surviving
decisions
guardianship
in
any
By
do poorly
MMA
the
in this particular
non legal
in
particular
own
family
the same token
a couple discovers
children
contentions
For instance
ability
state
for obtaining
MMA
it
the
cannot conceive
school
actually
fosters
the
parent would have
no authority
proceeding
22
And
in
the event
that
a state court
would have
151
Filed
Fourth the
that
heterosexual
state
them of social
children raised by
samesex
with
formal education.
racial
to
school
groups.
is
Id Taking
Ex
as the study
greater in the
this
the exclusion
explain
outcomes
US
31
at
5 A
showed
why
for children
children
Rosenfelds
to
sub optimal
of Asian descent
dictate
its
is
rural
to
another predictive
logical conclusion
of all other
the empirical
Obviously the
which groups
23
study
compared
than for children
is
state
has not adopted
selfevident
Optimal
may marry
same sex
raised by
whose
According
by prohibiting
Even
couples
legally
position to
simply not advanced
that
in
marry to
Pls.
of an
the challenge
more
through
fail
Likewise
ID 3966
and urban residents
to
Pg
capital.
well off
non legal
31
of
defendants
persistently
Pg 23
to
precarious
children
03 21 14
interested
assuming
Doc
because
As
that
goal is
are thousands of
same sex
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 24
of
31
Pg
ID 3967
and these
Nor does
prohibiting
samesex
same sex
number
of heterosexual
logical
connection
between banning
optimal
outcomes.
2
Throughout
in
proceeding
same sex
the trial
with caution
defendants
With Caution
Proceeding
that
it
is
The
state
impact of allowing
This wait and see
justification
is
not persuasive
Legislatures
decisions
more
related
why
when
conducted
is
and
legislators
constitutional
1963
when postponing
candor and insight
This is
must deliberate
when
sufficient
facts
comment
based on
Watson
Memphis 373
24
any deprivation
of
U S 526 532 533
for the here and
now and
unless
may
not shield itself
takes
Doc
03 21 14
Filed
with the wait
its
151
and see
course
to
be promptly
approach and
Were
Pg 25
sit
idly
of
31
interest in
proceeding
2013
U S Dist LEXIS
some
rationale
77
at
D Utah
the Court to accept
that
F Supp
Dec 20 2013
this
2d
972
at
quoting
the state can plead
Herbert
Rather the
state
179331
ID 3968
Id The
fulfilled.
an
Pg
No 13 217
state
must have
Romer
andsee
e ven
approach
fails
to
meet
this
preserving
justification
is
traditional
two fold
and see
approach
v Doe
509
it
have noted
is
moral disapproval
U S 312 326
relationships
1993
On
on equal protection
F3d 1
2012
1st Cir
The
difficulty
stating
that
the
with this
a ncient
samesex
15
that
is
traditional
the wait
Second
it
Since
the
that
U S Dept
this
of
for upholding
of Health
and
a provision of law
Human Servs
25
682
the
statute
Doc
U S Dist LEXIS
justification
26236
Bishop
Okla Jan 14 2014
48 49
at
approved the
who
cast their
MMA
Since
viewpoints
2014
who
of equal protection
plaintiffs
179331
539
amend I
2003
No 13 0982
2014
4374
at
101
ND
it
Nonetheless
to
or enforcing
As
Perry 704
79
same
that
the
is
of each individual
voter
Many
their
law
whether
at
is
under the
secular purpose.
U S 558 571
ID 3969
attorneys contended
that
protects
the free
accompanying
Pg
morality as a
U S Dist LEXIS
about marriage
U S Const
31
Perry
religion
of
rejecting
U S Dist LEXIS
and closing remarks
guarantees
2013
were motivated
own
No 04 848
Pg 26
De Leon
W D Tex Feb 26 2014
Kitchen
who
03 21 14
voters
Filed
of homosexuality
United States
stating
151
adherence
is
to an established
F Supp
2d
at
930 931
citing
Lawrence
Texas
MMA
4
Federalism
in
Windsor
26
Doc
151
03 21 14
Filed
Amendment
1971
Nelson 291 Minn 310
Windsor
marry The
right to
year
following
samesex
that
U S 810
1972
The
state
defendants have
argued
Pg
the Minnesota
couples have
a single sentence
in
31
of
ID 3970
held in Baker
Pg 27
In
Supreme Court
no Fourteenth
Nelson 409
in
precedent
The answer
to this
Dist LEXIS 179331
T he
Supreme
Court has
stated
a summary dismissal
that
Miranda 422
Here
U S 332 344
men
apply to gay
in
the Courts analysis
and lesbians
has
demonstrate
that
the
Courts
if
little
a quasi suspect
1976
197
classification
Frontiero
op
plurality
but
see Craig
Richardson
also
is
not
is
1975

they
23 26
at
before
Boren 429
US
411
Court
the
677
sex
that
U S 190
1973
688
recognized
the
that

sexual
1996
orientation
Moreover Baker was
Lawrence
in
demean
destiny
558
in
the
Texas
2003
578
that
existence
by making
their
As
was
of gay
men
and
below
justification
same sex
is
of lawsuits
the
because
to
to
their
US
Courts decision

its

that
reach
its
development
in state
samesex
dissenting justices
Court declined
a state
marriage
was noted by two
for
a crime. 539
Supreme
the
that states

a number
635636
As discussed above
620
unconstitutional

highly relevant
US
Evans 517

it
discussed
Lawrence removes a
See Romer
It
is
marriage a
standing
27
to
that
fact
pursue
the
Perry
appeal the
2013
US
The
recognition
applicable
287
in
DOMA
to
151
unconstitutional
Filed
the Windsor
Each
The
has
its
limits
power
law
relations
its
US
p rotection
While the
justices
in
ID 3971
that
North Carolina 317
state
Pg
2691
31
of
at
Pg 28
Court acknowledged
See Williams
as a sovereign
state
Id
03 21 14
of civil
its
1942
298
Doc
Kennedy
recognized
that this
power
laws
omitted and
to
that
exclusive
t he
states
one
district
astutely remarked
Bishop 2014
overturned
province
of the states,
Id
U S Dist LEXIS
Loving has profound
of domestic
interest
regulation
at
2692
federal
that
Loving
has long been
internal quotations
is subject
to Loving
is
not
citing
an area
66
at
Court did
id
is
citation
4374
relations
statutes
dismiss the
case
prohibiting
outright
interracial
for lack
they
of a substantial
U S 133 S Ct 2652
question See
marriage because
2013
Given
The Court
law
effect
28
in
full
Baker no
violated
just
omitted
as ineffectual
decisions
This position which
now
as
domestic
its
was
it
in
Loving
relations
Further the Court
marriage possesses
scrutiny
As
t he
MMA
air
some
of political
and
officials
Pg
ID 3972
right
to life
179331
83 84
at
that
to
Having failed
marriage the
Michigans
it
MMA
to
cannot stand
traditional
of
definition
was approved by
voter referendum
once wrote
establish
to
same sex
does nothing
Ones
31
U S Dist LEXIS
H Jackson
Justice Robert
vicissitudes
and
so
of
the contention
rejects
a heightened
2013
The
In doing
Pg 29
cannot use
03 21 14
Filed
that
relationships
citation
151
substantive
argument
Doc
them as
legal
rights
may
of
not be submitted to
West
Virginia
Bd
Wiesenfeld 420
incorporated
legal
of
Ed v
Barnette 319
U S 636 638
within the Fifth
1975
U S 624 638
stating
Amendments Due
constitutional
question
On
that
review
is
eg
Weinberger
Clause The Court
in
is
v
is
not aware of any
the event
it
the contrary
necessary
see
Process

Constitution
1943
29

their
representatives
t he
electorate
US
judicial
cannot order a
raises a
violation of the
otherwise
just
Due
IV
03 21 14
Filed
not avoid
their
Pg 30
of
31
Pg
application
ID 3973
or
by deferring to the
citizens
citing Cleburne 473
2013
US
at
U S Dist LEXIS
448
179550
27 28 S D
at
Ohio
the states domestic
limitations
Conclusion
In attempting
40
its
may
Dec 23 2013
relations
151
as the state
Obergefell
Doc
state
could
ever fully
being raised by
grow up
may
convey the personal
samesex
couples
It
is
sacrifice
rights
No
is
of their children
of their
own
that
who
seek
these children
family and
2 25 14 p
to
hope
Windsor 133
Tr
the Courts fervent
decision
proceeding
now
Ct
that
at
its
will
concord with other
2694
Todays
must
prevail
Accordingly
IT IS
HEREBY DECLARED
implementing
the Fourteenth
statutes
that
Amendment
to
Article
because they
violate
30
its
Clause of
IT IS
Article
FURTHER
Doc
ORDERED
151
that
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 31
of
its
31
Pg
ID 3974
from enforcing
Bernard
BERNARD
A Friedman
A FRIEDMAN

Dated
March 21 2014
Detroit Michigan
31
From
Potter Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
To
Sent
3 21 2014 3 23 58
Subject
RE NYTimes com
see freaking Schuette
already
PM
Same
Michigan Ban on
filed
notice
Sex Marriage
Is
Struck
of an appeal
From
Lea Ann Easton
mailto LEa ston dorsayindianlaw com
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 23 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Subject
RE
NYTimes com
Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage Is Struck
Here
Down
Down
s the decision
From
Potter Sheila H
Friday
March 21
2014 3 21 PM
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE
NYTimes
com
Michigan
doj state
Ban on Same
or us
Sex Marriage Is Struck
Down
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 19 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie
TRJohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie com
lake law
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes
Sent
NYTimes
com
by uncleannie3
http
https
com
Michigan
Michigan
Ban on Same

www
Ban on Same
nytlogo194x27
nytimes com images common
icons
comcast net
gif
t
wb 75 gif
Down
com
Jennifer Middleton
works com mailto lake law
Down
works com
Michigan
http
p nytimes
com email
1395440269306907
regi
Is
re location
Struck
Down
InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUi
pf2p679
9 user
id
be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895bd9464
email
type
eta task
id
d 0
By ERIK ECKHOLM
A federal
judge
issued the latest
in a string
of rulings that say
it
is unconstitutional
to deny
marriage to
gay couples

http
nyti ms 1evyFOj
Or
http
p nytimes com email re location
InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUi pf2p679

subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
http
vYPH
5440269306907 regi id 0
To ensure delivery
address book
to your inbox
please add
nytdirect
nytimes com
mailto nytdirect
nytimes
com
to your
Advertisement
http
graphics8 nytimes com adx images ADS
bin adx click html type goto opzn page secure
36 46 ad 364630 BELLE NYT336x90 jpg

http
www nytimes com adx
nytimes co
m mem emailthis htmlpos Frame6A sn2 6da5bd5a 78e3a
264 sn1 b961351 c8ef1427 camp FoxSearchlight AT2014 1911121C

2Ecom
2Fbelle
2F
Copyright
2014 http
p nytimes com email re location 4z5Q 7LhI KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6n
gi id 0
The New York Times
Company http
KU v6vqdu zT DtUzLlQEcSh user id be9e993bd4e086fc5057
NYTimes com 620 Eighth Avenue New York
NY
10018
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
information that
is privileged
confidential
or otherwise
exempt from disclosure
under
applicable
immediately
by
your system
law
reply
If
you
are
not
e mail keep
the
the
addressee
contents
or
it
appears
from
confidential
the
context
or
otherwise
and immediately
that
you have received
delete
this
the message
e mail
in error
please
advise
and any attachments
me
from
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
3 21 2014 3 24 35
Subject
RE
Jesus
From
Sent
To
doesn
Potter
Sheila
Friday
From
Sent
mailto sheila
Michigan
potter
taxpayer
Is
Struck
Down
money
doj state or us
2014 3 24 PM
RE NYTimes com
Potter
Here
From
Sent
Schue e already
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
March 21
Sheila
mailto
led
notice of
LEaston
Is Struck
Down
Is Struck
Down
Is Struck
Down
an appeal
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 3 23 PM
RE NYTimes com
Subject
To
PM
com
NYTimes
he have something be er to do with Michigan
March 21
see freaking
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Sheila
the decision
Potter
Friday
Sheila
March 21
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 3 21 PM
Lea Ann Easton
RE NYTimes com
Subject
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Potter
katevts
March 21
Sheila
mailto
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 3 19 PM
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Jennifer
Middleton
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
multco us
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes com
NYTimes com
Sent by uncleannie3
comcast
Is Struck
Is Struck
Down
Down
net

Marriage Is Struck
Down
BY ERIK ECKHOLM
federal
lake
law works
com
say
Or copy and paste

http
To
nyti
get
ms
it
is
this
unconstitutional
URL
into
to
New
your browser
1evyFOj
unlimited
access
all
York Times
articles
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
To ensure
delivery
to
your
inbox
please add
nytdirect
nytimes
com
to
your address book
ADVERTISEMENT
Copyright
2014

York
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
applicable law
NY 10018
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
To
Sent
3 21 2014 4 09 08
Subject
RE NYTimes com
PM
Michigan Ban on
Same
Sex Marriage
Schuette and I are on

I ve found
exactly opposite
Mr
for his office to use Michiganders
money
sides
Is
of every page
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 25 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Subject
RE
NYTimes com
Jesus
From
Sent
doesn
he have
Potter Sheila
Friday
March
better
to do with Michigan
H
21
2014 3 24 PM
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE
NYTimes
I
something
com
Michigan
already
doj state
Ban on Same
filed
notice
when
it
comes t
o the best
ways
Down
taxpayer
s money
or us
Sex Marriage Is
Struck
Down
of an appeal
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 23 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Subject
RE
NYTimes com
Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage Is Struc
Here
Down
Struck
k Down
s the decision
From
Potter Sheila H
Friday
March 21
2014 3 21 PM
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE
NYTimes com
Down
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 19 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
lake law wor
Jennifer Middleton
ks com mailto lake law
works com
katevts
multco us
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes com Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage
Sent
mailto
by uncleannie3
http
https
katevts
multco
us
NYTimes com Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage
comcast
Is
nytlogo194x27
Struck
Struck
net mailto uncleannie3
Is
icons
Down
Down
comcast net
gif
t
wb 75 gif

http
p nytimes com email re location InCMR7g4BCKC2wi
By ERIK ECKHOLM
A federal judge
gay couples
issued the latest
in a string
ZPkcVUi
pf2p679
of rulings that say
it
is unconstitutional
http
nyti ms 1evyFOj
Or
http
p nytimes com email re location InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUi pf2p679
to deny
marriage to
To get unlimited access t o all New York Times articles

subscribe today
http
vYPH
user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a489
5bd9464 email type eta task id 139
5440269306907 regi id 0
To ensure delivery
address book
to your inbox
nytimes com
to your
Advertisement
http
graphics8 nytimes com adx images ADS 36 46 ad 364630
BELLE NYT336x90 jpg
http
www nytimes com adx
nyt5 ad
BELLE NYT336x90
jpggoto
http
A 2F 2Fwww
2Efoxsearchlight
2Ecom
2Fbelle
2F
Copyright
2014 http
95440269306907 re
gi id 0
The New York Times
Company http
NYTimes com 620 Eighth Avenue New Y
ork
10018
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NY
NOTICE
e mail may contain
information that
is privileged
confidential
or otherwise

If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context
keep
from your system
exempt from disclosure

or otherwise
the contents
that
you have
confidential
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
3 21 2014 4 46 37
Subject
Your question
Coie
PM
Sheila
Here
the relevant
is
Page
THE
from the transcript
18 lines 3 4
COURT
clerk
Page
All
excerpt
Okay
David
working on the
Svelund
case
23 line 19 to page
right
Thank
24 line 6
you very
to your briefings
here is my career
and if
much
I look
forward
any particular
difficulties
come
up and we can try to resolve them informally

I am pretty
accessible
Just contact the courtroom deputy
Ms
Pew
And also I
you know
if there are other
my
clerks
here
I think
are doing a very
good
job of finding
other briefings in other cases

If there are
rather than
copying the Oklahoma case and all the briefings that went
into it on either side
if you just think it s significant
please
just let
Mr
Svelund
know
and he will
get
it
for me
without you having to ship it down here or any of those

briefings that seem to be out there now
Okay
All right
Thank you very much
So
imagine you could forward the Michigan
opinion to either
Ms Pew
or
Mr Svelund and
it
would get to the Judge
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
IRS CIRCULAR
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
To
Sent
3 21 2014 4 56 01
Subject
RE NYTimes com
So
we should send this to the
send to the group and then the
one
who
This
PM
Michigan Ban on
court
clerk
Same
Sex Marriage
s clerk who is working

but you might rather
Is
Struck
Down
on the case
I m happy to draft
since you are in fact the totally
brought the news to the rest of us
decision
is so
so good
The Regnerus
piece alone has totally
made
my day
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 24 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Jennifer Middleton
TRJohnson perkinscoie
katevts multco us
Joyce Anna
kdiaz aclu or org
works com
RE
NYTimes com
Subject
Here
Lea
something and
on the ball
com
lake
law
s decision
Ann
From
Lea Ann Easton
Friday
March 21
2014 3 19 PM
Sent
To
MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MI saak perkinscoie com
katevts
Subject
Subject
Sent
http
multco us mailto katevts multco us

FW
NYTimes com
Michigan Ban on Same
NYTimes
com
by uncleannie3
Michigan
Ban on Same
Sex Marriage I
nytlogo194x27
s Struck Down
doj state or us
Jennifer Middleton
com
gif
comcast net
Down
works com
https
www
nytimes
com images common icons
wb 75 gif

http
By ERIK ECKHOLM
A federal judge
gay couples
issued
the latest
in a string
pf2p679
of rulings that say it
is unconstitutional

http
nyti ms 1evyFOj
Or
http
9 us
to deny
marriage to
er id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895b

subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
http
KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzk g7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB
vYPH
5440269306907 regi id 0
To ensure delivery
address book
to your inbox
nytimes com mailto nytdi
rect
nytimes com
to your
Advertisement
http
http
www nytimes com adx
bin adx click html type goto opzn page secure nytimes com mem emailthis htmlpos Frame6A sn
2 6da5bd5a 78e3a
2Ecom 2Fbelle 2F
Copyright
2014 http
KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKa
email type eta task
hJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6n
id 1395440269306907 re
gi id 0
The New York Times
Company http
KUv6vqdu zT DtUzLlQEcSh user id be9e9
NYTimes com 620 Eighth Avenue
10018
93bd4e086fc5057
New York
NY
From
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
To
H
Perkins Coie
Sent
3 21 2014 4 57 17
Subject
RE
Thank
you
From
Isaak
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Subject
Misha
Perkins
March
Sheila
PM
Your question
21
Coie
2014
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
4 47 PM
Your question
Sheila
Here
is
Page
18 lines
THE
COURT
clerk
Page
All
to
the
relevant
Okay
David
on the
23 line 19 to
Thank
we
can
accessible
And
other
and
to
the
into
on either side
Oklahoma
you having
briefings
All
that
right
So I
case
to
get
to
difficulties
If
know
deputy
are other
the
and
down
there
Ms
finding
rather
it
that
than
went
s significant
he will
get
it
or any of
now
Pew
job of
are
briefings
here
come
am pretty
my
good
there
you just think
be out
you very
the
forward
informally
all
ship it
imagine you could
would
and
if
to
look
a very
cases
Svelund
seem
Thank
my career
courtroom
there
are doing
copying
without
them
the
if
in other
Mr
is
any particular
resolve
think
please just let
much
if
you know
here
here
24 line 6
Just contact
briefings
it
Svelund
you very
try
also I
clerks
transcript
case
page
your briefings
up and
from the
3 4
working
right
excerpt
for me
those
Okay
much
forward
the
Michigan
opinion
to
either Ms
Pew
or Mr
Svelund
and
it
Judge
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
503
E MAIL
IRS
97209
727
346
2086
CIRCULAR
contained
Perkins
4128
2086
misaak
perkinscoie
230
regulations
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
ensure
perkinscoie
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
without
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
com
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
misaak
herein
message
com mailto
avoiding
have
LLP
Floor
Portland
FAX
Coie
Street
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
3 21 2014 5 02 49
Subject
RE
Yes
was planning on doing
the clerk s email address
At the scheduling
addressing
issues
holding that Michigan
in
Marriage
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
just
up a memo
for
a client and haven
send
it
to him and cc everyone
date
it
was Judge McShane
rathe
Is
Down
read the decision yet
t
r
Struck
need to
nd
than going through eding email
state
li
ga on
The
federal
Amendment
invited
counsel
court in the Eastern Distric
of
to submit cases or decisions

Michigan
Act violated same sex plain s rights und
issued a decision
er the Fourteenth
today
Amendment
we
So
think
Sheila
March 21
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 4 56 PM
RE NYTimes com
should send this to the court s clerk
who
From
Sent
Potter
March 21
Sheila
multco us
Subject
so so good
is
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
katevts
Here
clerk
who
is
Is Struck
Down
working on the case
m happy
to
draft
something and
but you might rather since you are in fact the totally on the ball one
This decision
mailto
The Regnerus piece alone has
LEaston
made
totally
my day
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 3 24 PM
MIsaak
RE NYTimes com
com
perkinscoie
Joyce Anna
kdiaz
Jennifer
aclu or
Middleton
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
lake
law works
com
org
Is Struck
Down
decision
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
Michigan
was nishing
on Whatever
our
PM
com
forwarding a copy of that decision for the court
What do you
To
that
thought
conference
involved
NYTimes
The email would simply
process
am
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
sheila
works
March 21
potter
com
katevts
2014 3 19 PM
doj state or us
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Jennifer
Middleton
TRJohnson
multco us
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes com
NYTimes com
Sent by uncleannie3
comcast
net
Is Struck
Is Struck
Down
Down
perkinscoie
com
lake
law

Marriage Is Struck
Down
BY ERIK ECKHOLM
federal
say
Or copy and paste

http
To
nyti
get
ms
it
is
this

unconstitutional
URL
into
to
New
your browser
1evyFOj
unlimited
access
all
York Times
articles
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
To ensure
delivery
to
your
inbox
please add
nytdirect
nytimes
com
to
your address book
ADVERTISEMENT
Copyright
2014

York
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
applicable law
NY 10018
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
3 21 2014 5 05 28
Subject
RE
Do you remember name
From
Potter
Sent
To
Friday
Sheila
March 21
of
Sheila
Michigan
The op ons are
the clerk
mailto sheila
PM
com
NYTimes
potter
Is
Struck
James Cleavenger
David Svelund
Down
Matthew Berry
doj state or us
2014 4 56 PM
Lea Ann Easton
RE NYTimes com
Subject
we
So
should send this to the court s clerk
who
From
Sent
Potter
March 21
Sheila
multco us
Subject
so so good
is
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
katevts
Here
clerk
who
is
Is Struck
Down
working on the case
m happy
to
draft
something and
but you might rather since you are in fact the totally on the ball one
This decision
To
mailto
The Regnerus piece alone has
LEaston
made
totally
my day
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 3 24 PM
MIsaak
RE NYTimes com
com
perkinscoie
Joyce Anna
kdiaz
Jennifer
aclu or
Middleton
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
lake
law works
com
org
Is Struck
Down
decision
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
sheila
works
March 21
potter
com
katevts
2014 3 19 PM
doj state or us
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Jennifer
Middleton
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
multco us
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes com
NYTimes com
Sent by uncleannie3
comcast
Is Struck
Is Struck
Down
Down
net

Marriage Is Struck
Down
BY ERIK ECKHOLM
federal
com
lake
law
say
Or copy and paste

http
To
nyti
get
ms
it
is
this
unconstitutional
URL
into
to
New
your browser
1evyFOj
unlimited
access
all
York Times
articles
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
To ensure
delivery
to
your
inbox
please add
nytdirect
nytimes
com
to
your address book
ADVERTISEMENT
Copyright
2014

York
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
applicable law
NY 10018
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
PM
Sent
3 21 2014 5 12 27
Subject
Re NYTimes com Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage
Svelund
Is
Struck
Down
thanks
Sheila H
Potter
Trial Division
Justice
On Mar 21
2014
at 5 05 PM
Lea Ann Easton

com
wrote
Do you remember name of the clerk

The options are
David Svelund mailto David
Matthew
James Cleavenger mail to James Cleavenger ord uscourts gov
Berry
mailto Matthew
Berry ord
uscourts
one
This
who
court
clerk
ord uscourts
gov
gov
From
Potter Sheila H
Friday
March 21
2014 4 56 PM
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE
NYTimes com http
NYTimes com
Michigan Ban on Same
So
we should send this to the
Svelund
Down
s clerk who is working on the case

I
m happy to draft something and
since you are in fact the totally on th
e ball
decision
is so
so good
The Regnerus
made
my day
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 24 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com
Jennifer Middleton
Joyce Anna
kdiaz aclu or org mailt
o kdiaz aclu or org
RE
NYTimes com http
NYTimes com
Subject
Here
Lea
s decision
Ann
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
To
Friday
March 21
2014 3 19
PM
sheila potter
doj state or us
Jennifer Middleton
com
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes
sheila potter
Sent
doj
state or
NYTimes
https
mailto
com http
com http
by uncleannie3
http
us
NYTimes
NYTimes
com
com
Michigan
Michigan
nytlogo194x27
icons
comcast net
gif
t
wb 75 gif

http
By ERIK ECKHOLM
A federal judge
gay couples
issued the latest
in a string
works com
pf2p679
of rulings that say
it
9 user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4
is unconstitutional
to deny
895b
marriage to

http
nyti ms 1evyFOj
Or
http
p nytimes com email re location InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUi pf2p679 9 user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895b
To
to all
New
York Times articles
http
5440269306907 r egi id 0
To ensure delivery
address book
to your inbox
subscribe
today
ee Subscription
Options
4z5Q7LhI
vYPH
nytimes com
to your
Advertisement
http
graphics8 nytimes com adx images ADS 36 46 ad 364630 BELLE NYT336x90
jpg
http
www nytimes com adx bin adx click html type
oto opzn page secure nytimes com mem emailthis htmlpos Frame6A sn2 6da5bd5a 78e3a264 sn1 b961351 c8ef1427 c
amp FoxSearchlight AT2014 1911121C
2Ecom 2Fbelle 2F
Copyright
2014 http
gi id 0
The New York Times
Company http
NYTimes com http
NYTimes com
620 Eighth
Avenue New York
NY 10018
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE

confidential
from your system
keep
the
contents
confidential
From
Potter Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
PM
Sent
3 21 2014 5 12 43
Subject
Re NYTimes com Michigan Ban on Same Sex Marriage
Is
Struck
Down
great
Looks
Sheila H
Potter
Trial Division
Oregon Department of Justic e
On Mar 21
2014
at 5 02 PM
Yes
I
I need
going
Lea Ann Easton

com
wrote
was planning on doing that

I was finishing up a memo for a client and haven
t read the decision yet
to find the clerk
s email address
I thought I d just send it to him and cc everyone
rather than
through editing
email process
The email would simply state
At the scheduling conference

on Whatever date it was
Judge McShane invited counsel
to submit cases or
decisions addressing issues involved in our litigation
The federal court in the Eastern District of
Michigan issued a decision today holding that Michigan
s Marriage Amendment Act violated same sex
plaintiff
s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
I am forw arding a copy of that decision for the court
What
do you think
From
Potter Sheila H
Friday
March 21
2014 4 56 PM
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE
NYTimes com http
NYTimes com
Marriage Is Struck
Down
So
we should send this to the court
s clerk who is working on the case
I
m happy to draft something and
since you are in fact the totally on the ball
send to the group and then the clerk
one who brought the news to the rest of us
This
decision
is so
so good
The Regnerus
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 24 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIs aak
made
perkinscoie
my day
com
Jennifer
Middleton
TRJohnson
Subject
Here
Lea
perkinscoie
multco us
katevts
RE
com mailto TRJohnson
mailto
NYTimes
multco
katevts
com http
us
perkinscoie
Joyce
Anna
NYTimes
com
kdiaz
com
law works
lake
aclu
or
org
Michigan
com mailto
mailto kdiaz
Ban on Same
aclu
law
lake
or
works
com
org
Down
s decision
Ann
From
Lea Ann Easton
Friday
March 21
2014 3 19 PM
Sent
To
MIsaak
perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak perkinscoie com
Jennifer Middleton
Subject
FW
NYTimes com http
NYTi mes com
Subject
Sent
NYTimes
com http
by uncleannie3
http
https
NYTimes
com
Michigan
ny tlogo194x27
icons
comcast net
gif
t
wb 75 gif

http
ask id 1395440269306907 regi id 0
d9464 email type eta t
By ERIK ECKHOLM
A federal judge
gay couples
issued the latest
in a string
pf2p679
of rulings that say
it
to all
New
York Times articles
subscribe
is unconstitutional

http
nyti ms 1evyFOj
Or
http
To
works com
today
to deny
marriage to
9user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a4895b
See Subscription
Options
http
5440269306907 regi id 0
To ensure delivery to your inbox

address book
4z5Q7LhI
vYPH
please add
nytdirect
nytimes com
to your
Advertisement
http
http
www nytimes com adx
bin adx click html type go to opzn page secure nytimes com mem emailthis htmlpos Frame6A sn2 6da5bd5a 78e3a
2Ecom 2Fbelle 2F
Copyright
2014 http
gi id 0
The New York Times
Company http
p nytimes com
email re location 4z5Q7LhI
NYTimes com http
NYTimes com
620 Eighth
Avenue New York
NY 10018
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE

confidential
please advise
me immediately by reply e mail
from your system
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
David
CC
Potter
ord uscourts gov
Svelund
Sheila
MIsaak
Joyce Anna
perkinscoie
KJHolm
perkinscoie
Sent
3 21 2014 5 21 36
Subject
6 13 cv 01834
Attachments
213772631
Notice
This communication
intended
for
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
recommending
of
any attachments
individual
this
notified
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
kdiaz
aclu or org
and
any attachments
we
contain
is
any transaction
by law
protected
If
you are not the

distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
Law pdf
of
is strictly
IRS regulations
party
com
perkinscoie
Middleton
Kitzhaber et al
not intended
to
to another
Jennifer
al
specific
including
avoiding
multco us
Doboer Findings
Notice 2
com TRJohnson
law works
PM
including
and are hereby
attachments
lake
katevts
MC Geiger et
you should delete
recipient
com
com
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
Mr Svelund
At the scheduling
decisions
conference
Michigan
issued a decision
plaintiffs
rights
Co Counsel
Geiger
Plaintiffs
Dorsay Easton LLP

Suite 440
OR
503 790 9060
SW
Columbia
97258
Judge McShane
in our litigation
The
Amendment
invited
counsel
to
federal court in the Eastern
today holding that Michigan s Marriage
Lea Ann Easton
Portland
on January 22 2014
addressing issues involved
am forwarding
Amendment
a copy
submit cases or
District of
Act violated
of that
de
same sex
cision for the court
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
Pg
1 of 31
ID 3944

SOUTHERN DIVISION
APRIL
DEBOER
and next friend of

minors and
N D R R D R and
JAYNE
ROWSE
and
DR
and as parent
individually
DR
individually
and
ND R RD R
minors
Civil Action
Plaintiffs
No 12 CV10285
HON BERNARD
A FRIEDMAN
vs
RICHARD SNYDER
Governor
BILL
in
his official
SCHUETTE
his official
in
capacity
as
and
capacity
as
Defendants
FINDINGS
Plaintiffs
April
plaintiffs
hereinafter
Amendment
or
that
challenge
prohibits
MMA
Plaintiffs
maintain that the
Fourteenth
Amendment
same sex
marriage
Mich Const Art I
25 The
shall
a November 2004
MMA
man
and one
woman
in
marriage
violates
the
Due
Clauses of the
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
county
from enforcing
officials
Doc
151
Filed
the provision and
03 21 14 Pg
its
involved
MMA
and
is
2 of 31
after
Pg
ID 3945
considering
all
of the legal issues
and will enjoin
unconstitutional
its
enforcement
samesex
I
Background
The
Park Michigan
and
jointly
own
their
neonatal intensive
residence
2011 DeBoer
plaintiffs
In
and Rowse
initially
24 Mich Comp Laws

claimed
a nurse in the
Unable to
710.24 which
restricts
section 24 violates
Henry
In April
Code
that
hereinafter
the Court
section
adoptions
among
at
jointly
that
is
to
DeBoer
filed
Plaintiffs
is
November 2009 Rowse
couples
2011
In October
adopted child
They have
are an unmarried
Plaintiffs
In response
Clause because
it
moved
lacked standing
to
bring suit
General
The defendants in
Bill
Schuette
County Clerk
successor
in
Bill
this
office defendant
Lisa
plaintiffs
Brown
who was
Although Brown
legal position
challenging
Richard
Plaintiffs
Snyder and Attorney
later
eventually
is
named
the
replaced by his
as a defendant
MMA
in this
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
The Court
Doc
while plaintiffs
enforcement
made
standing
claim
a colorable
24
of section
Rather
that
to
the
Plaintiffs
were
plaintiffs
The
state
The
to
seek leave
amend
to
their
accepted
objection
the validity of the
MMA
in
that
that
because they
MMA
The Court
decision
its
samesex
with biologically
that
the
in United
connected
role
this
time
to
dismiss the amended
States
after
the United
S Ct 2675
Windsor 133
2013
DOMA
summary judgment
The
defendants
state
2 avoiding
3 upholding
complaint
development
MMA
their
amend
motion
then renewed their
defendants
children
The Court noted
in
ID 3946
MMA
States
24
section
samesex
complaint
challenge
to
Pg
3 of 31
plaintiffs
form of
legal
grounds
03 21 14 Pg
ineligibility
challenge
Filed
plaintiffs
151
tradition
the unintended
consequences
and morality and
that
that
4 promoting
Assuming
1 providing
that
might
result
the transition
the appropriate
level
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
their
Pg
4 of 31
raised triable
that plaintiffs
MMA
entitlement to
ID 3947
summary judgment
As a
II
Trial Proceedings
whether the
conduct
in
MMA
survives
a manner
the Court directed
rational
basis review
Findings of Fact
words does
In other
that is rationally
the
MMA
proscribe
purpose
Plaintiffs
David Brodzinsky as
called psychologist
parenting
Ex
30
at
raised by
that
34
Nor
is
same sex
in
their
parents
t he
warmth and
nurturance
opportunities
are provided
rules
characteristics
sic
that
testified that
Tr
The
for the child

is
And
ability
to
between the
employ age
that
2 25 14 pp 69 70
are
are afforded
Brodzinsky
parents Id
development
from the outside
in
the developmental
and structure
that children
testified that
difference
appropriate
He
the
witness
their first
And
of
the parents
position Brodzinsky
at
78 79
What
require parent role
matters is the
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
same sex
parenting
same sex
recognizing
become a
fact
of
for
03 21 14 Pg
Id
at
Id
78
many American
investing
Filed
thats
has
151
life
Doc
at
Pg
5 of 31
ID 3948
children
and
that
legally
that
by promoting family
stability
and
136
research studies
selfselecting
are statistically
convenience
commonly
use convenience
because they
in
in
studies.
tool
affecting
same sex
unreliable because
their
that
their
scientific
raised by
samesex
that
there is no
The Court
weight
He
testified
couples
convincingly
that
and gives
it
considerable
sexual orientation
credible
was
skills
is
unrelated
not in any
way
to the persons
same sex
gender or
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
social science
research
convenience
studies.
butter of
reliable
many
if
different
Doc
upon which
151
As Brodzinsky and
03 21 14 Pg
are based
his opinions
as occurred
Filed
come
and the
largely from
socalled
results
by
replicated
different
sample groups
Sociologist Michael
Rosenfeld supported
this
conclusion
to
School,
samesex
raised by
children
ID 3949
others testified
research
Pg
6 of 31
income
samesex
education
cohabiting
same sex
couples
Regarding couple
break up
stability
rates
same
Rosenfeld
than heterosexual
rate
as children
testified that
married couples
samesex
1990s
However
studies measuring
unions demonstrated
with heterosexual
married couples
among
cohabiting
recognized
unions exhibit the
same
same sex
union
in
the 1980s and
longevity rates
that
form of
that
same sex
couples was on par
same sex
couples in legally
married
counterparts
Although he
testified
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
the comparable
regarding
recognized
that
a small
Rosenfeld referred
to
Doc
number
of detractors have
that
critiqued
this
argument
uncertainty
at trial
by showing
data indicated
that
Pg
7 of 31
ID 3950
couples Rosenfeld
his research
In particular
Rosenfelds
who
same sex
criticized
methodology he used
the statistical
that
that
Rosenfelds
03 21 14 Pg
Filed
children
151
results
in
his 2010 study
Rosenfeld responded
exhibits Rosenfeld
demonstrative
showed
statistical
the results of
and income levels
that
to
samesex
be held back
that in
in
The Court
the children
shows
of heterosexual
heterosexual
couples
and sociological
Rosenfelds
study
that
children
to
Rosenfeld
fields
showed
this
This finding led
of
samesex
him
to
conclude
Rosenfeld
Tr
and gives
2 25 14 p 82
it
great weight
samesex
associations in the
that
children
According
married couples.
The Court
couples
psychological
samesex
of heterosexual
finds Rosenfelds
is
of
in
school
is statistically
same sex
insignificant
couples
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14 Pg
ID 3951
organization
in this
whose focus
country
data
Pg
8 of 31
is
the
concluded
children
that
these
children
are not
expressing
for parenting
support
Medical
Association
Psychiatric
Psychiatry
National
Association
of Social
American
of Pediatrics
American
of
Association
Child Welfare
Workers and
by
fostering
to
Academy
Psychoanalytic
Association
to
Organizations
and or
adoption
American Academy
American
Psychological
households
but are not limited
compared
disadvantaged
parent
lesbian
the data
League
American
of
America
Institute
Pls.
Ex
30
shown
unrelated
likely
that
to
unanimously voted
same sex
professor
Vivek Sankaran
to
18 Moreover
testified that
the
are burdensome
welfare to file
non legal
once the
non legal
parent
111
MMA
at
destabilizes
commences
status
finality
every year
a guardianship
to that
if
raised by
Sankaran
over the
until
the child turns
proceeding
there is no
petition
children
and often lack
review a
the child
Ex
of children is
her to adopt
well being
such circumstances
that in
are required
in
Law
stated
APA
Association
has
21
at
interest
permit him or
in the childs
2 12 cv 10285 BAF MJH
Sankaran
interests
a neighbor
teacher
Should the
Doc
testified that
non legal
claims to have
of
Tr
interest in
in
Human
file
an
any delay
parent encounter
03 21 14 Pg
Filed
who
or anyone
151
left
distant
Services
DHS
for at least
some
In this event
parents
foster
According
interests
non legal
to
Sankaran
the
non legal
to
have
far
non legal
parent
testified
and are
convincingly
at risk
same sex
that
children
DHS
is
authorized
non legal
to
parent and
non legal
to
become a
licensed
Gary Gates
testified
could
that
currently
Tr
2 27 14 p 29
being raised by
samesex
that
and gives
it
great weight
He
Denying
on such couples
credible
finds Sankarans
period of time
The Court
initiate
parent would have
samesex
could
required
of the child
place
relative
ID 3952
the child.
pursuing
2 26 14 pp 120 121
Pg
9 of 31
children
The
testimony of Gates
same sex
whom the
of this effect
couples
by noting
that
5,300 children
in
Michigan
Plaintiffs
151
Historian
Nancy
legitimate children
furthered
Social Security
many
historical
these benefits the
MMA
31
Pg
to
ID 3953
of the colonies
care for dependents
century the
who
otherwise
and federal
state
For instance
Yet by
samesex
bases for civil
MMA
of
Pg 10
governments
03 21 14
households
Filed
through
Doc
central
stability
incapable
state
of creating
the country
in
capacity
Cott indicated
or inclination
to
marriage
Nor have
Examining the
or infertility
to
prerequisite
history of every
Tr
to
possess the
2 28 14 p 14
She
women
that
or sterile
men
the inability
Id
at
15
to
of a
from marrying
have a child has
for obtaining
marriage Cott
Even today
to
legal
states
historical
that
a marriage license
As
make
fertility
defendant Lisa
10
stability
Brown
testified
children
Michigan
procreate parenting
marriage license
residency
at
skills
Doc
151
or the potential
Brown Tr
Filed
Pg 11
of
31
Pg
ID 3954
3 3 14 pp 34 38 40
and whether
03 21 14
either
of the applicants
is
currently married
Id
32 35
The Court
testified
who
finds
convincingly
Brown
to
that
age residency and
parenting
skills
or whether
they have
to raise
Mark Regnerus
Regneruss
NFSS a
15,000 participants
had been
in
same sex
who
MMA
project
years old
samesex
that
was formulated
to
39
From
childhood
this
that
sample 175 reported
years
one of
Of
their
that their
the
parents
mother had a
applicable
to

to one another
18
to
to
at least
or at least
performed See
Once a
called

directly related
Clerks
romantic
children
single status
a criminal record
sociologist
She
Mich Comp Laws

551.1 551.2 551.3 551.4 551.5 551.101 551.103
with statutory
authority See
Mich Comp Laws
11
551.7 551.9
and a person
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 12
31
of
Pg
ID 3955
subgroups
involved
with another
man
who were
Regnerus found
were
less
The
samesex
relationship
unemployed
likely
who
biological parents
different
significantly
children
that
raised by intact
past
more likely
to
and more likely
experience
to
who
sexual assault more
have been arrested
at
some
point in
nonminor
their
same sex
relationship
offenses and
were more likely
more
likely
to
actually
raised in
revealed that
And many
First
samesex
many
of the participants
just over half
90
NFSS
it
samesex
This is because
romantic
never lived
children
voiced
raised by parents
their
who
in
biological families
the participants
same sex
household
whose mother had
to
who
household
the
were
histories
samesex
concern that the
happened
criticized
failed to
critics
plead guilty to
Second many
to
households
parental
and demographic
sociological
children
representative
to
that
engage
12
partner at the
Regnerus reported
same
of
same sex
Id
time.
some form
This is because
all
that
NFSS made
in
at
time
at
11
between
relationship and
in the former
Doc
instability
Even Regnerus
acknowledged
and
parent
Moreover
that
that
151
Filed
heterosexual
prior
of the only
exact
two
may
who
of
31
Pg
ID 3956
significant
fluctuation
NFSS
participants
Pg 13
recognized
t he
03 21 14
unknown
are
Defs.
Ex
28
at
same sex
welladjusted
been in
or have
The Court
consideration
concocted
at
be gathered
and contemporary
testified that
in
samesex
in
at
demonstrated
trial
Mark Regnerus
moment
showing
is
Ex 9
this
found
it
study.
See
view
In the funders
in
child outcomes
Id Time was
April
Perry
Schwarzenegger
704
Nonetheless
child outcomes
Regnerus
parents are
Id
at
16
was
hastily
data
Pls.
that
Motion
in
limine to Exclude
Id The
to
counter the
Testimony of
many
published
2d 921
the
NFSS
in
2012 because
N D Cal 2010
13
studies
F Supp
of
no differences
11
his 2012 study
that
by
at
affect
the question
be comparatively
Id
outcomes.
finds Regneruss
to settle
to
comments
decisions
and Windsor
in
such as
United States
833
F Supp
2d 394
Doc
S D N Y 2012
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 14
of
31
Pg
ID 3957
concept of the
institution
of marriage.
that
the funding
researcher
NFSS
Additionally the
is
Regnerus
may
have found
same sex
ages
added
emphasis
on
flawed
different
face as
its
18 39
but in fact
it
in this
and severely
Regneruss
has distanced
itself
same sex
questioned
many
APA
is
no wonder
NFSS
who
have undertaken a
to
samesex
the
NFSS
Dr
and
samesex
department
that
at
the
Regneruss views
in
position statement
families often have
to
couples with
has been widely
criminality or
sociology
in particular
to
that
own
testified that
and failed
that
from the
raised by
raised in
It
In reviewing the
to
University of Texas
certain
purported
it
who were
criticized
children
methodologies
relied
unemployment
14
Both witnesses
raised by intact
Joseph Price
heterosexual
couples
grade retention
In his testimony
Marks
Doc
151
lauded a
1996
03 21 14
Filed
Pg 15
of
31
Pg
ID 3958
Social Development.
couples
cohabiting
controlling for
among
same sex
parents
studys
couples.
probative
76 By
at
16 38
at
was
intact
in
discrepancy
heterosexual
at
some
earlier
time
in their
in
Id
at
76
lives
that
raised by
Marks Tr
and
the
same sex
3 5 14 pp 75
at
have accounted
evaluating
the statistical
the Rosenfeld study
population
was
samesex
was
that
76 78
study
17 However
parental divorce
by
Marks
parental separation
this
Id
value
couples experienced
25
homosexual
Ex
raised by
same sex
methodology
that
was flawed because
problematic because
it
Allen and Catherine
couples
Pakaluk
in
Price opined that
and the sample
15
family structure
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
not experience
Pg 16
d changes
of
31
Pg
for the previous
ID 3959
five years,
Ex
to operate. Defs.
likely
27
28 By
at
same sex
couples have
demonstrated
that
that
Tr
Douglas Allen
testified
about
his
own
Marks Tr
rates
of young adults
samesex
couples
heterosexual
homes and 52
households
in
because the study
their
One
relied
Allen could
childhood
many
or separated
Id
at
49
homes
of the young adults
Allen
Tr
raised in
Defs.
who
Ex
when
their
was
that
16
at
in
their
Similarly
26
were living
36 14 pp 119 120
how
17 22
Without
not gauge
years or
that
ages
Census
3 5 14 p 24
same sex
same sex
3 5 14 pp 54 56
Economist
36 On
raised by
research has not
Price
and
noticeably
definitively
sample population
is
school during
Tr
3 6 14 p 120
particular
Doc
151
up
in
same sex
who
children
lived with
samesex
graduation
rates Allen
The Court was
among
group think,
accepted
that
that
it
of the 59 published
He
who
politically
in
which
it
concluded
children
of heterosexual
parents.
Marks
at
Id
emphasis
ID 3960
120 121
at
of growing
for those
added
in
the importance
the overwhelming
correct
that
in
Marks undertook
APA
n ot
an excruciatingly
in support of
its
2005 Brief
non random
15
characterized
children
Ex
Marks Price and
to
research tool
Pg
lacked
31
3 6 14 pp 128 129
Tr
without subjecting
some
of
the household
in
that
Pg 17
consensus
with a separation
in a footnote
residential
Markss
03 21 14
Moreover when Allen
weight
Filed
methods used
to
relative to
many
of these
of convenience
17
The most
that
can
has not been proven
III
finds that the
MMA
whether the
jurisdiction
in
Ct 2566
Clause forbids a
473
U S 432 439
2012
2578
of the laws,
of
1985 On
state
ID 3961
raised by
children
the liberties
that
it
couples in
any conceivable
U S 439 445
the other
that
alike.
hand
states
Cleburne
are
Natl Fedn of
adopting
1988
right Cleveland
Bd
of
Educ
perform
Sebelius 132
1996 A
recognized
stating
La Fleur 414
to
which distinguish
U S 620 631
1987
its
Cleburne Living
Indep Bus
regulations
Evans 517
U S 78 95
in
reaching
and promotes the
empowered
Safley 482
that
marriage
the decision to
U S 632 639 640
is
one of
U S 1 12
1967 same
Griswold
same
18
them.
U S Const amend XIV
protected
Virginia 388
same sex
right See Turner
a fundamental
stating
right
Assn 485
modern government,
as a fundamental
is
the Court finds
1974
that
Pg
advance
Protection
marry
31
Inc
of
questions
The Equal
MMA
and longstanding
constitutional
evidence showing
Northwest
fundamental
many
Pg 18
Law
Center
03 21 14
Legal Standards
The Court
ideal that
Filed
Conclusions of
See Lyng
151
same sex
Doc
Connecticut 381
U S 479 486
1965
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 19
of
31
Pg
ID 3962
of
governance
this
the United
scrutiny which
strict
is
1995
216
form
applying
1944
strict
applying
against suspect
strict
scrutiny
Constructors Inc
to classification
of
evaluating
is
end
tier
To
classes such as
Pena 515
States 323
United
scrutiny which
U S 200
227
U S 214
more relaxed
quasisuspect
discriminate
See Clark
classes.
classification
1982
Jeter 486
U S 456 461
applying
intermediate
basis review which
scrutiny
to
1988
applying
Women
as
Hogan 458
The
known
least
to
U S 718 723 724
testimony
about
bifurcate
to
the
trial
in
classifications
scrutiny
consider
whether
moved
gay
Morgan County
held that a
same sex
classes See Davis
Bd
more
Prison Health
of
Educ
470
Servs 679
F3d
F3d
250 261
433
438
6th Cir
6th Cir
2006
does not
2012
Scarborough
marriage
bans
see Windsor
United States 699
19
F3d 169
185
2d Cir 2012
of
Massachusetts
2012
manner
this
Bradley 440
F3d 425
432
U S 93 97
6th Cir
2012
rationality
2000
2000
facts that
508
it
is
MMA
F3d 1
682
MMA
Guzman
11
ID 3963
1st
Cir
purpose See
Sec
Kimel
classifications
plaintiffs
to
Florida
Bd
of Regents
produce evidence
to
528
support the
rational
to
Johnson
230
FCC v
F3d 840
843
conceivable
Beach
6th Cir
state
of
Commcns Inc
1993
1 providing
Pg
MMA
trial
31
incumbent upon
could provide
U S 307 313
the
The government
by any evidence
Rather
1979
of any combination
imposed
of its
unsupported
Human Servs
of
84
Pg 20
grounds unless
the achievement
U S 62
03 21 14
that is rationally
protection
to
Filed
level of scrutiny i
Under
679
151
deferential
Vance
Doc
MMA
for child rearing
2 proceeding
3 upholding
with caution before
tradition
and morality
20
at
purview of the
exclusive
states
1
The
premise
state
The Court
power
rejects this
raised by
rationale
at trial
31
Pg
MMA
ID 3964
on the
disproved
this
premise
study shows that
Rosenfelds
school as children
that
samesex
fare
Tr
Brodzinsky
2 25 14 p 78 He
in
is
any
if
key
we
warmth
Then were going
Its
and
raised in
Brodzinsky also
we
women
two
are present
listed

is
nearly
confirmed
households
in producing
style which
heterosexual
is
stated that
at
of
for several reasons
adduced
samesex
households
testified that
Id
Pg 21
Rosenfelds
Its
None
same sex
03 21 14
amendment
psychological
Filed
First the evidence
children
police
151
Optimal Environment
heterosexual
that
the
Doc
call
an authoritative
to have a child
who
is
much more
likely
to
men
good
thats
mental
parenting
of resources
be healthy
78 79
In response
state
In an effort to
show
that
couples the
21
children
state
raised by
defendants
same sex
relied
couples
principally
upon
Regneruss
NFSS
The
the fact that
many
incidents
eg
divorce
samesex
households
same sex
that
raised by
samesex
31
Pg
efforts
failure
to
ID 3965
were
account for
NFSS
Regneruss
prior
result
from a
who
were actually
children
of
failed to
it
Pg 22
raised in
raised in
who were
of the subjects
03 21 14
Filed
care system
151
common
unavailing
Doc
To
couples
couples have
outcomes than
better
the contrary
of the scientific
Second
The
do not include the
prerequisites
or
if
Third contrary
potential
for childhood
plaintiffs
die or
to
to
or
if
incapacitated
make
legal
to raise
them
of a marriage once
the couples
destabilization
become
changes
is
the surviving
decisions
guardianship
in
any
By
do poorly
MMA
the
in this particular
non legal
in
particular
own
family
the same token
a couple discovers
children
contentions
For instance
ability
state
for obtaining
MMA
it
the
cannot conceive
school
actually
fosters
the
parent would have
no authority
proceeding
22
And
in
the event
that
a state court
would have
151
Filed
Fourth the
that
heterosexual
state
them of social
children raised by
samesex
with
formal education.
racial
to
school
groups.
is
Id Taking
Ex
as the study
greater in the
this
the exclusion
explain
outcomes
US
31
at
5 A
showed
why
for children
children
Rosenfelds
to
sub optimal
of Asian descent
dictate
its
is
rural
to
another predictive
logical conclusion
of all other
the empirical
Obviously the
which groups
23
study
compared
than for children
is
state
has not adopted
selfevident
Optimal
may marry
same sex
raised by
whose
According
by prohibiting
Even
couples
legally
position to
simply not advanced
that
in
marry to
Pls.
of an
the challenge
more
through
fail
Likewise
ID 3966
and urban residents
to
Pg
capital.
well off
non legal
31
of
defendants
persistently
Pg 23
to
precarious
children
03 21 14
interested
assuming
Doc
because
As
that
goal is
are thousands of
same sex
Doc
151
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 24
of
31
Pg
ID 3967
and these
Nor does
prohibiting
samesex
same sex
number
of heterosexual
logical
connection
between banning
optimal
outcomes.
2
Throughout
in
proceeding
same sex
the trial
with caution
defendants
With Caution
Proceeding
that
it
is
The
state
impact of allowing
This wait and see
justification
is
not persuasive
Legislatures
decisions
more
related
why
when
conducted
is
and
legislators
constitutional
1963
when postponing
candor and insight
This is
must deliberate
when
sufficient
facts
comment
based on
Watson
Memphis 373
24
any deprivation
of
U S 526 532 533
for the here and
now and
unless
may
not shield itself
takes
Doc
03 21 14
Filed
with the wait
its
151
and see
course
to
be promptly
approach and
Were
Pg 25
sit
idly
of
31
interest in
proceeding
2013
U S Dist LEXIS
some
rationale
77
at
D Utah
the Court to accept
that
F Supp
Dec 20 2013
this
2d
972
at
quoting
the state can plead
Herbert
Rather the
state
179331
ID 3968
Id The
fulfilled.
an
Pg
No 13 217
state
must have
Romer
andsee
e ven
approach
fails
to
meet
this
preserving
justification
is
traditional
two fold
and see
approach
v Doe
509
it
have noted
is
moral disapproval
U S 312 326
relationships
1993
On
on equal protection
F3d 1
2012
1st Cir
The
difficulty
stating
that
the
with this
a ncient
samesex
15
that
is
traditional
the wait
Second
it
Since
the
that
U S Dept
this
of
for upholding
of Health
and
a provision of law
Human Servs
25
682
the
statute
Doc
U S Dist LEXIS
justification
26236
Bishop
Okla Jan 14 2014
48 49
at
approved the
who
cast their
MMA
Since
viewpoints
2014
who
of equal protection
plaintiffs
179331
539
amend I
2003
No 13 0982
2014
4374
at
101
ND
it
Nonetheless
to
or enforcing
As
Perry 704
79
same
that
the
is
of each individual
voter
Many
their
law
whether
at
is
under the
secular purpose.
U S 558 571
ID 3969
attorneys contended
that
protects
the free
accompanying
Pg
morality as a
U S Dist LEXIS
about marriage
U S Const
31
Perry
religion
of
rejecting
U S Dist LEXIS
and closing remarks
guarantees
2013
were motivated
own
No 04 848
Pg 26
De Leon
W D Tex Feb 26 2014
Kitchen
who
03 21 14
voters
Filed
of homosexuality
United States
stating
151
adherence
is
to an established
F Supp
2d
at
930 931
citing
Lawrence
Texas
MMA
4
Federalism
in
Windsor
26
Doc
151
03 21 14
Filed
Amendment
1971
Nelson 291 Minn 310
Windsor
marry The
right to
year
following
samesex
that
U S 810
1972
The
state
defendants have
argued
Pg
the Minnesota
couples have
a single sentence
in
31
of
ID 3970
held in Baker
Pg 27
In
Supreme Court
no Fourteenth
Nelson 409
in
precedent
The answer
to this
Dist LEXIS 179331
T he
Supreme
Court has
stated
a summary dismissal
that
Miranda 422
Here
U S 332 344
men
apply to gay
in
the Courts analysis
and lesbians
has
demonstrate
that
the
Courts
if
little
a quasi suspect
1976
197
classification
Frontiero
op
plurality
but
see Craig
Richardson
also
is
not
is
1975

they
23 26
at
before
Boren 429
US
411
Court
the
677
sex
that
U S 190
1973
688
recognized
the
that

sexual
1996
orientation
Moreover Baker was
Lawrence
in
demean
destiny
558
in
the
Texas
2003
578
that
existence
by making
their
As
was
of gay
men
and
below
justification
same sex
is
of lawsuits
the
because
to
to
their
US
Courts decision

its

that
reach
its
development
in state
samesex
dissenting justices
Court declined
a state
marriage
was noted by two
for
a crime. 539
Supreme
the
that states

a number
635636
As discussed above
620
unconstitutional

highly relevant
US
Evans 517

it
discussed
Lawrence removes a
See Romer
It
is
marriage a
standing
27
to
that
fact
pursue
the
Perry
appeal the
2013
US
The
recognition
applicable
287
in
DOMA
to
151
unconstitutional
Filed
the Windsor
Each
The
has
its
limits
power
law
relations
its
US
p rotection
While the
justices
in
ID 3971
that
North Carolina 317
state
Pg
2691
31
of
at
Pg 28
Court acknowledged
See Williams
as a sovereign
state
Id
03 21 14
of civil
its
1942
298
Doc
Kennedy
recognized
that this
power
laws
omitted and
to
that
exclusive
t he
states
one
district
astutely remarked
Bishop 2014
overturned
province
of the states,
Id
U S Dist LEXIS
Loving has profound
of domestic
interest
regulation
at
2692
federal
that
Loving
has long been
internal quotations
is subject
to Loving
is
not
citing
an area
66
at
Court did
id
is
citation
4374
relations
statutes
dismiss the
case
prohibiting
outright
interracial
for lack
they
of a substantial
U S 133 S Ct 2652
question See
marriage because
2013
Given
The Court
law
effect
28
in
full
Baker no
violated
just
omitted
as ineffectual
decisions
This position which
now
as
domestic
its
was
it
in
Loving
relations
Further the Court
marriage possesses
scrutiny
As
t he
MMA
air
some
of political
and
officials
Pg
ID 3972
right
to life
179331
83 84
at
that
to
Having failed
marriage the
Michigans
it
MMA
to
cannot stand
traditional
of
definition
was approved by
voter referendum
once wrote
establish
to
same sex
does nothing
Ones
31
U S Dist LEXIS
H Jackson
Justice Robert
vicissitudes
and
so
of
the contention
rejects
a heightened
2013
The
In doing
Pg 29
cannot use
03 21 14
Filed
that
relationships
citation
151
substantive
argument
Doc
them as
legal
rights
may
of
not be submitted to
West
Virginia
Bd
Wiesenfeld 420
incorporated
legal
of
Ed v
Barnette 319
U S 636 638
within the Fifth
1975
U S 624 638
stating
Amendments Due
constitutional
question
On
that
review
is
eg
Weinberger
Clause The Court
in
is
v
is
not aware of any
the event
it
the contrary
necessary
see
Process

Constitution
1943
29

their
representatives
t he
electorate
US
judicial
cannot order a
raises a
violation of the
otherwise
just
Due
IV
03 21 14
Filed
not avoid
their
Pg 30
of
31
Pg
application
ID 3973
or
by deferring to the
citizens
citing Cleburne 473
2013
US
at
U S Dist LEXIS
448
179550
27 28 S D
at
Ohio
the states domestic
limitations
Conclusion
In attempting
40
its
may
Dec 23 2013
relations
151
as the state
Obergefell
Doc
state
could
ever fully
being raised by
grow up
may
convey the personal
samesex
couples
It
is
sacrifice
rights
No
is
of their children
of their
own
that
who
seek
these children
family and
2 25 14 p
to
hope
Windsor 133
Tr
the Courts fervent
decision
proceeding
now
Ct
that
at
its
will
concord with other
2694
Todays
must
prevail
Accordingly
IT IS
HEREBY DECLARED
implementing
the Fourteenth
statutes
that
Amendment
to
Article
because they
violate
30
its
Clause of
IT IS
Article
FURTHER
Doc
ORDERED
151
that
Filed
03 21 14
Pg 31
of
its
31
Pg
ID 3974
from enforcing
Bernard
BERNARD
A Friedman
A FRIEDMAN

Dated
March 21 2014
Detroit Michigan
31
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
3 24 2014 11 36 00
AM
Subject
RE
Michigan
must be ge ng so
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Mr
From
Sent
oce
Potter
From
Sent
mailto sheila
com
li
le
Is
Struck
Down
teary at the end
doj state or us
potter
2014 4 09 PM
are on
March 21
Sheila
ve found
mailto
LEaston
exactly opposite
Is Struck
Down
sides of every
page when
it
omes
to the best ways
money
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 3 25 PM
doesn
Potter
Sheila
Friday
to use Michiganders
RE NYTimes com
he have something be er to do with Michigan
March 21
mailto sheila
potter
Is Struck
taxpayer
Down
money
doj state or us
2014 3 24 PM
Lea Ann Easton
RE NYTimes com
Subject
see freaking
From
Sent
Potter
Here
From
Sent
Schue e already
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
March 21
Sheila
mailto
led
LEaston
notice of
Is Struck
Down
Is Struck
Down
Is Struck
Down
an appeal
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 3 23 PM
RE NYTimes com
Subject
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Jesus
To
RE NYTimes com
Subject
NYTimes
read the decision and got a
March 21
Schue e and
for his
To
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
re
Sheila
the decision
Potter
Friday
Sheila
March 21
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 3 21 PM
Lea Ann Easton
RE NYTimes com
Subject
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Potter
katevts
March 21
Sheila
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 3 19 PM
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Jennifer
Middleton
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
multco us
Subject
FW
Subject
NYTimes com
NYTimes com
Is Struck
Is Struck
Down
Down
com
lake
law works
com
comcast
Sent by uncleannie3
net

Marriage Is Struck
Down
BY ERIK ECKHOLM
federal
say
Or copy and paste

http
To
nyti
get
ms
it
is
this

unconstitutional
URL
into
to
New
your browser
1evyFOj
unlimited
access
all
York Times
articles
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
To ensure
delivery
to
your
inbox
please add
nytdirect
nytimes
com
to
your address book
ADVERTISEMENT
Copyright
2014

York
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
applicable law
NY 10018
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
To
Sent
3 24 2014 11 43 29
Subject
RE NYTimes com
The
concluding
paragraph
AM
Michigan Ban on
is basically
perfect
Same
It
Sex Marriage
Is
Struck
Down
did the same thing to me
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Monday
March 24
2014 11 36 AM
To
Potter Sheila H
Subject
RE
NYTimes com
Down
I must be getting soft

I re read the decision and got a little
teary at the e
Potter Sheila H
From
Friday
March 21
2014 4 09 PM
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE
NYTimes com
Mr
Schuette and I are on
I ve found
exactly opposite
for his office to use Michiganders
money
sid es of every
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 25 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Subject
RE
NYTimes com
Michigan Ban on Same S ex Marriage Is Struck
Jesus
doesn
he have
something
better
to do with Michigan
page
Down
taxpayer s money
From
Potter Sheila H
Friday
March 21
2014 3 24 PM
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE
NYTimes com
Mich igan Ban on Same Sex Marriage Is Struck Down
I
From
Lea Ann Easton
already
filed
mailto LEaston
notice
of an appeal
dorsayindianlaw
com
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 23 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Subject
RE
NYTimes com
Michigan
nd
when
it
comes to the best ways
Here
s the
From
Sent
To
decision
Potter
Friday
Lea
Ann
Sheila
March 21
mailto
doj
state
or
us
PM
Easton
RE NYTimes com
Subject
sheila potter
2014 3 21
Michigan
Is
Struck
Down
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
March 21
2014 3 19 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
MIsaak perkinscoie com mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
Jennifer
Middleton
TRJohnson perkinscoie com mailto TRJohns on perkinscoie com

lake law works com mailto lake
Subject
FW
NYTimes com
Subject
Sent
NYTimes
com
by uncleannie3
http
https
Michigan
Ban on Same
nytlogo194x27
eta task
A federal judge
gay couples
issued the latest
Down
gif
icons
id 1395440269306907
wb 75 gif
pf2p679
eta task
in a string
id 1395440269306907
regi id 0
of rulings that say
it
is unconstitutional

http
nyti ms 1evyFOj
Or
http
d9464 email type
works com
comcast net

http
d9464 email type
By ERIK ECKHOLM
law
regi
id 0
to deny
marriage to
To
get
http
unlimited access
p nytimes
to all
com email
New
York Times
re location
UY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk
articles
4z5Q7LhI
subscribe today
See Subscription
Options
email type eta task
vYPHy
JP5GfoOOml3K0i6Ga
id 1395440269306907
regi i
d 0
To
ensure
address
delivery
to your inbox
nytimes com
to your
book
Advertisement
http
graphics8 nytimes c om adx images ADS 36 46 ad 364630 BELLE NYT336x90 jpg
http
www nytimes com adx
nyt5 a d BELLE NYT336x90 jpggoto http 3A 2F 2Fwww 2Efoxsearchlight
2Ecom 2Fbelle 2F
Copyright
2014 http
user id be9e993bd4e086fc50573a489
5bd9464 email type eta task id 1395440269306907 re
gi id 0
The New York Times
Company http
NY
Times com 620 Eighth Avenue New York
10018
CONFIDENTIALITY
NY
NOTICE

confidential
If you are not the addressee or it appears f rom the context or otherwise that you have
from your system
From
Isaak
Misha
To
lake
law works
Thomas
Johnson
JMiddleton
rsaxe
Coie
com Lea Ann Easton

dorsayindianlaw
com Potter
LEaston
CC
Perkins
Perkins Coie
Jr
com Kevin
Amanda Goad
jjlslaw
aclu org
Sent
3 25 2014 9 23 36
Subject
Rummell
Diaz
LEaston
Holm
kdiaz
LGBT
com
dorsayindianlaw
Sheila
Joyce
Kristina
Anna
Perkins Coie
aclu or org
agoad
katevts
kdiaz
Jennifer Middleton
Rose
aclu or org
agoad
aclu org
multco us
Saxe
aclu org
AM
videotape
hearing
Counsel
Our
client
Fund would
to
like
ask permission of the Court to videotape
the April 23 hearing
Do
any of
you object to this request
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
IRS CIRCULAR
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Isaak
CC
Johnson
Misha
Perkins
JMiddleton
rsaxe
com Kevin
Amanda Goad
3 25 2014 9 31 41
Subject
RE
Rummell
This communication
intended
for
including
specific
and are hereby
attachments
Notice 2
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
notified
that
it
may
and purpose
Joyce Anna
Perkins Coie
kdiaz
aclu org
contain
aclu or org
agoad
multco us
katevts
Jennifer Middleton
Rose
Saxe
aclu org
and
is
we
by law
protected
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
is strictly
not intended
any transaction
party
aclu or org
US
federal tax advice
be used
to
to another
Sheila
Potter
Kristina
agoad
communication
this
any attachments
including
avoiding
kdiaz
LGBT
any attachments
IRS regulations
with
Diaz
com
Holm
hearing
individual
law works
AM
videotape
you should delete
recipient
lake
Perkins Coie
Jr
jjlslaw
aclu org
Sent
Notice
Coie
Thomas
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
Misha
and were unable
had
have no objection
to change
They decided
or live stream the hearing

I
we
behalf of Geiger plaintiffs
of the hearing
previously requested
Two
their travel
they
of our plaintiffs
plans
so
we
are
going
to
plan to request
did not want to delay the hearing in
permission of the parties
and
received
be
out of the country
permission
order
On
to
on
the day
from the court to record
accommodate
their
travels
permission as well
Lea Ann
From
Isaak
Sent
To
Misha
Tuesday
Thomas R
Johnson
kdiaz
aclu
Subject
aclu
mailto
Lea Ann Easton
doj state or us
Kevin Diaz
agoad
Coie
misaak
perkinscoie
com
2014 9 24 AM
com
law works
lake
anna joyce
Cc
Perkins
March 25
Jr
or
Perkins
org
Potter
multco
katevts
Coie
kdiaz
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
Joyce Anna
us
Holm
aclu or
Kristina J
org
Perkins
Rose Saxe
Coie
rsaxe
Jennifer
aclu
org
Middleton
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad LGBT
jjlslaw
agoad
com
aclu
org
org
Rummell
videotape
hearing
Counsel
Our
client
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
com
Fund would
like
to
Do
any of
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
To
Isaak
Misha
Joyce Anna
CC
Perkins
Thomas
Johnson
JMiddleton
LGBT
Goad
jjlslaw
Jr
3 25 2014 9 32 05
Subject
RE
Rummell
LEaston
Holm
Perkins Coie
com
agoad
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Coie
dorsayindianlaw
com
Potter
Sheila
multco us
katevts
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
agoad
aclu org
Kristina
Perkins Coie
aclu or org
Rose Saxe
Jennifer Middleton
rsaxe
aclu org Amanda
aclu org
AM
videotape
hearing
Counsel
As you
consider
this
request
please consider the following
during the hearing and would like to ask permission
due to the delay
the lead plaintiffs
will
be out of town
of the Court to live transmit the April 23 hearing
Any
objections
Thank you
Lake
Original Message
Rummell
Subject
From
Date
To
videotape hearing
Misha
Isaak
3 25 14 9 23
Perkins Coie
law works com
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
potter
anna joyce
Cc
KJHolm
Diaz
rsaxe
com
doj state or us
Thomas
perkinscoie
kdiaz
lake
doj state or us
Johnson
law works com

LEaston
sheila
katevts
Jr
com
aclu or org
com
doj state or us
multco us
aclu or org
LGBT
agoad
Joyce
perkinscoie
JMiddleton
kdiaz
com
LEaston
dorsayindianl
aw com
Potter
Sheila
Anna
anna joyce
doj state or us
multco us
katevts
TRJohnson
Jennifer Middleton
kdiaz
Lea Ann Easton
dorsayindianlaw
potter
Perkins Coie
Amanda Goad
aclu org
perkinscoie
am
lake
sheila
misaak
jjlslaw
aclu or org
aclu org
agoad
com
Holm
com
JMiddleton
Rose Saxe
aclu org
Kristina J
rsaxe
agoad
Perkins Coie
jlslaw
com
Kevin
aclu org
aclu org
Counsel
Our
client
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins CoieLLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2086

FAX 503 346 2086
E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
com
Fund would
like
to
Do
any of
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Isaak
katevts
multco us
Johnson
Thomas
JMiddleton
rsaxe
aclu org
3 25 2014 10 05 04
RE
s got
Lea
Ann
Easton
Sent
Tuesday
March
To
Isaak
Misha
Saxe
RE
Coie
Perkins Coie
aclu or org
agoad
or live
kdiaz
Jennifer Middleton
Rose
aclu or org
agoad
aclu org
streaming
dorsayindianlaw
lake
Perkins
Amanda
Rummell
LGBT
Kristina
Joyce Anna
Saxe
aclu org
or both
com
9 32 AM
jjlslaw
org
Holm
kdiaz
com
law works
hearing
videotape
LEaston
Jr
Diaz
lake
AM
videotape
to
2014
JMiddleton
rsaxe aclu
Subject
mailto
25
Perkins
katevts multco us
Cc
Johnson
Thomas
Middleton
Rummell
no objections
From
Perkins Coie
Jr
com Kevin
Amanda Goad
Subject
State
Perkins Coie
jjlslaw
Sent
The
Misha
law
Coie
com
Kevin
Goad
LGBT
videotape
works
com
Holm
Diaz
Potter
Kristina
kdiaz
agoad
aclu
aclu
Sheila
Joyce
Perkins
or org
org
agoad
Coie
kdiaz
aclu
Anna
Jennifer
aclu
or org
Rose
org
hearing
Misha
On
behalf
out
we
of
of
country
on the
to
request
permission
plan
decided
they
previously
Lea
Geiger plaintiffs
the
did not
want
requested
we
day of
to
have
the
from the
delay
permission
of
no objection
hearing
and
court
to
record
the
hearing
the
parties and
of
our plaintiffs
unable
to
or live
in order
to
change
stream the
accommodate
received
permission
are going
their travel
hearing
to
be
plans
so
They
their travels
had
as well
Ann
From
Isaak
Sent
Tuesday
Misha
Perkins
March
25
Coie
2014
mailto
misaak
anna
joyce
katevts
doj state
or us mailto
multco us mailto
Johnson
Middleton
Thomas
JMiddleton
katevts
Jr
agoad
aclu
agoad
videotape
anna
Perkins
jjlslaw
org mailto
Rummell
com
com
Lea Ann Easton
Potter Sheila H
potter doj state or us
Joyce Anna
joyce
doj state
or us
multco us
Coie
com mailto

rsaxe aclu org mailto rsaxe aclu
Subject
perkinscoie
9 24 AM
To
lake law works com mailto lake law works
sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila
Cc
Two
were
aclu
Holm
Kristina
JMiddleton
kdiaz
org
aclu or org mailto

Amanda Goad
LGBT
org
agoad
aclu
jjlslaw
Perkins
com
kdiaz
org mailto
Coie
Kevin
aclu
agoad
Jennifer
Diaz
kdiaz
or org
aclu
aclu
Rose
Saxe
org
hearing
Counsel
Our client
the
Basic
Rights
April 23 hearing
Do
Education
any of
Fund
would
you object
to
like
to
ask permission
of
the
Court to
videotape
this request
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
Perkins
Couch
Coie
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
97209
727
4128
2086
FAX
503 346 2086
E MAIL
misaak perkinscoie
IRS
LLP
Street
CIRCULAR
230
DISCLOSURE
com mailto
To
misaak
ensure
perkinscoie
compliance
com
regulations
we inform you that
contained

Perkins
cannot
Coie
LLP
to
be used
and
be used
by the
and
IRS
otherwise
any federal tax advice
taxpayer
for the
purpose
of
avoiding
penalties
promoting
that
marketing
or recommending
herein
or any attachments
NOTICE
This
have
communication
received
message
and
it
in error
any attachments
to
may contain
party
privileged
please advise
without
taxpayer
another
the
copying
under
or other
sender
the
Internal
any transaction
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
contents
Revenue
or matter
Code
information
immediately
Thank
or
ii
addressed
you
If
you
delete
the
VON TER STEGGE

H
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
Perkins
Jr
Kevin Diaz
LGBT
Isaak
kdiaz
agoad
Subject
Re Rummell
On
Tuesday
The
March 25 2014
State s got
From
Sent
no
To
Isaak
Cc
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
agoad
kdiaz
aclu
Subject
Coie
Perkins
Thomas R
com
Jennifer
Rose Saxe
aclu or org
Joyce Anna
Middleton
Johnson Thomas
JMiddleton
rsaxe
aclu org
jjlslaw
com
Amanda Goad
aclu org
hearing
Potter
Sheila
sheila
to videotape
potter
wrote
doj state or us
or live streaming or both
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 32 AM
March 25
Misha
law works
Coie
AM
videotape
LEaston
mailto
lake
Perkins
for the County
objections
Lea Ann Easton

Tuesday
kdiaz
agoad
aclu org
3 25 2014 10 47 32
streaming works
Perkins Coie
Kristina
aclu or org
Sent
Videotaping
Misha
Holm
Coie
Jr
aclu or
org
com
law works
lake
Coie
Perkins
kdiaz
Holm
aclu
or
Potter
Sheila
Kristina J
org
Perkins
Rose Saxe
Joyce Anna
Coie
rsaxe
aclu
org
multco
katevts
Jennifer
Middleton
us
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
LGBT
com
jjlslaw
agoad
aclu
org
org
RE Rummell
videotape
hearing
Misha
On
we
behalf of Geiger plaintiffs
record
their travel
of our plaintiffs
so
plans
we
are goin g to be out of the country
plan to reques
had previously requested permission of the
parties
on the
permission from the court to
They decided they did not want to delay the heari ng
or live stream the hearing
travels
Two
have no objection
day of the hearing and were unable to change
in
order to accommodate
their
and received permissio n as well
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Isaak
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
agoad
Subject
Counsel
Coie
com
Thomas R
mailto
Lea Ann Easton
Jr
aclu or
Perkins
org
videotape
Potter
multco
katevts
Coie
kdiaz
org
Rummell
misaak
perkinscoie
com
2014 9 24 AM
doj state or us
kdiaz
aclu
Perkins
March 25
law works
lake
anna joyce
Cc
Misha
Tuesday
hearing
Holm
aclu
Sheila
sheila
doj state or us
potter
Joyce Anna
us
or
Kristina J
org
Perkins
Rose Saxe
Coie
rsaxe
Jennifer
aclu
org
Middleton
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
LGBT
jjlslaw
agoad
com
aclu
org
Our
client
Fund would
like
to
Do
any of
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
or
it
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
confidential
appears
County Attorney
97214
or otherwise
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
privileged
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
3 25 2014 11 21 57
Subject
How a
http
m huffpost
http
www
com
Sheila
us entry 5028958
law works com
PM
Lawyer Defied the
Gay
utm hp
ref
Establishment and Got Michigan s Marriage Ban Struck
gay voices
Down
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
3 26 2014 11 57 39
Subject
FW
Sheila
How a
H
AM
Lawyer Defied the
Gay
Establishment and Got Michigan s Marriage Ban Struck Down
Interes ng arcle
From
Lake
Sent
To
Perriguey
Tuesday
mailto lake
March 25
law works
com
2014 11 12 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
How
a Lawyer Defied the Gay Establishment
m huffpost
http
Lake James
com
us entry 5028958
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
utm hp
and Got Michigan
ref
gay voices
Marriage
Ban
Struck
Down
From
Isaak
To
Misha
CC
Joyce Anna
Perkins
Saxe
Coie
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
Coie
rsaxe
Easton
lake
jjlslaw
law works
com
com
Rights
be
also
Fund
interested
this
request
and
is
in
interested
this
Basic Rights
one
in finding
a way
file
is
that
the Geiger
a formal motion
if
MC
Geiger v
No 6 13
Kitzhaber
in
plaintiffs
website
of
the
the above
have conferred
couples
plaintiff
watch the hearing in real time
to
Kristina
Rose
Perkins Coie
Jr
Lea Ann
aclu org
Kitzhaber
cv 01834
referenced
No 6 13
cv 01834
plaintiffs
if
in
consolidated
with counsel for
all
theGeiger case
will
Basic Rightsis granted
MC
MC
parties
be out
Our
cases
the Court s permission to videotapethe April 23 hearing
like
its
understanding
Geiger v
the Rummell
would
my
would accommodate
would be happy to
MC
streaming the hearing on
In fact
the hearing
cv 02256
Perkins Coie LLP represents
Education
Holm
aclu or org
Thomas
PM
Rummell v Kitzhaber No 6 13 cv 02256
As you know
kdiaz
Johnson
Amanda Goad LGBT

agoad
aclu org
agoad
dorsayindianlaw
com
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
LEaston
No 6 13
aclu org
Subject
Kitzhaber
Sheila
Potter
3 27 2014 2 07 09
multco us
katevts
Sent
Re Rummell
Ms Pew
Perkins
Pew
Charlene
and they
of
client
Basic Rights
all
Basic
may
consent to
town for the hearing
permission to videotape
and stream
as well
the Court would prefer that to this
email
request
Thank you
Misha Isaak
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
PHONE
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
perkinscoie
IRS CIRCULAR
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
3 28 2014 10 58 46
Subject
FW
No ce
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
any disclosure
this
Sheila
AM
SmithKline not so secure
including
may contain
any a achments
communica on and
copying
Joyce Anna
multco us
katevts
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
conde
you are
If
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
of any ac
hereby no ed that
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
avoiding
including
we
any a achments
inform you that any

is
ma er addressed
on
or
You probably have
all
read this by
now
but
S federal tax advi
Code
party any transac
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
or recom
ed
thought
d pass
it
along just in case
you had not
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Lake
SmithKline
See below
www
If
com
law works
mailto lake
March 27
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
http
Perriguey
Thursday
2014 5 54 PM
Misha Isaak
Tom
Johnson
not so secure
rehearing en banc
scotusblog
is
granted
com 2014 03
the prior ruling
defining
is
vacated
a legal test for sexual orientation
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
for
in this
discrimination
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Charlene
CC
Joyce Anna
Pew
KJHolm
ord uscourts gov
jmiddleton
TRJohnson
Sent
3 28 2014 4 23 56
Subject
Geiger v
02256
This communication
Notice

disclosure
com
com
kdiaz
MIsaak
aclu or org
com
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
No 6 13
cv 01834
MC
Lead Case
Rummell v Kitzhaber No
13
cv
MC
including
may
any attachments
and
is
protected
by law
contain privileged
If
you are not the
or con
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
copying
multco us
katevts
law works
PM
Kitzhaber
and purpose
jjlslaw
com lake
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
with
including
penalties
any transaction
IRS
we
regulations
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
is
Revenue
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
Ms Pew
am
co counsel for the Geiger
Two
plaintiffs
of our clients will be out of the country on the date of the hearing on
April 23th and are unable to rearrange their travel plans in order to attend the hear ing
videotape
the April 23 hearing for them
counsel for
of the
If
all
Rummel
parties
and they
plaintiffs
the court would prefer
we
Lea Ann Easton

Counsel Geiger
Dorsay
Plaintiffs
Easton LLP
SW
Suite 440
Portland
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
or in streaming
consent
the hearing to them via the
to this request
file
internet
would
I
like
permission to
have conferred with
understand that the Basic Rights Education
has requested permission of the court to record and stream
Thank you
Co
all
We
a formal motion on this request
I will
do so
the hearing
Fund
one
From
Charlene
To
Lea Ann Easton
Pew
CC
Joyce Anna
KJHolm
jmiddleton
Sent
3 28 2014 4 30 13
Subject
Re
Geiger v
will
in
multco us
katevts
com
law works
kdiaz
MIsaak
aclu or org
com
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
PM
No 6 13
Kitzhaber
We may
check and get back to you
cameras
com
cv 01834
MC
Lead Case
Rummell v
Kitzhaber
No6 13
cv
MC
02256
outside
jjlslaw
com lake
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
ord uscourts gov
Once
the courtrooms
be able
to
do
by video conference
this
have an answer
butI
am
not sure that the rules allow for
get back with you
will
Pew
Charlene
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
From
Lea Ann
To
Charlene
Cc
anna
kdiaz
aclu
MIsaak
Easton
Pew
joyce
541 431 4105
LEaston
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
aclu
dorsayindianlaw
Charlene
anna
or org
MIsaak
com
Pew
ord uscourts gov
joyce
doj state or us
KJHolm
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
jmiddleton
com
jjlslaw
KJHolm
sheila potter
com
jmiddleton
com
perkinscoie
doj state or us
jjlslaw
lake
sheila potter
com
law works
katevts
com
multco
lake
katevts
multco us
com
perkinscoie com
TRJohnson
doj state or us
us
law works
PM
No
Kitzhaber
6 13
Subject
Geiger v
Notice
This communication
copying
01834
cv
MC
including
and purpose

disclosure
97401
com
03 28 2014 04 24
Date
Phone
doj state or us
kdiaz
TRJohnson
OR
ord uscourts gov
or org
Room 2100
Eugene
Lead Case
Rummell
Kitzhaber
may
any attachments
and
is
protected
by law
No
13
cv
02256
MC
contain privileged
If
you are not the
or con
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
with
including
IRS
we
regulations
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
Revenue
inform you that any
is
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
Ms Pew
I
am
co counsel for the Geiger
plaintiffs
Two
of our clients will be out of the country on the date of the hearing on
April 23th and are unable to rearrange their travel plans in order to attend the hear ing
videotape
the April 23 hearing for them
or in streaming
the hearing to them via the
We
internet
would
I
like
permission to
have conferred with
counsel for
of the
If
all
Rummel
parties
and they
plaintiffs
the court would prefer
we
Thank you
Lea Ann Easton
Co
Counsel Geiger
Dorsay
Plaintiffs
Easton LLP
SW
Suite 440
Portland
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
all
consent
to this request
understand that the Basic Rights Education
has requested permission of the court to record and stream
file
a formal motion on this request
I will
do so
the hearing
Fund
one
From
Potter
To
Tom
Sent
4 1 2014 9 22 48
Subject
Oh my god
The
list
getting
Sheila
of
amici
better
Sheila
Johnson
Perkins Coie
has seriously got
around
us
as we
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
misaak
perkinscoie
com
AM
me right on the
watch
edge
of
tears
Holy
crap
The
world
is
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
4 1 2014 9 24 59
Subject
RE Oh my god
Yes
is
it
anymore
have reached a
as you so eloquently
Misha Isaak
said in
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
AM
tipping
point at
which opposing
marriage
equality is
just
not an acceptable
position
your own brief
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Potter
Sent
To
We
wonderful
Coie
Johnson
Sheila
Tuesday
Johnson
list
Subject
The
April
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 9 23 AM
01
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
Oh my god
of amici has seriously got
around us as
we
me right
on the edge of
tears
Holy crap The
world is
ge ing be er
watch
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Johnson
To
Isaak
Sent
4 1 2014 9 59 17
Subject
RE Oh my god
Thomas R Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Potter
Perkins
Coie
Sheila
AM
RCTID
Portland Timbers
1120
Thomas
Misha
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Isaak
Misha
Tuesday
Potter
Subject
Yes
perkinscoie
it
is
anymore
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
We
wonderful
have reached a
said in
tipping
point at
which opposing
marriage
equality is
just
not an acceptable
position
your own brief
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
To
Coie
2014 9 25 AM
01
RE Oh my god
Misha Isaak
Sent
Perkins
April
Sheila
com
Potter
Sheila
Tuesday
Johnson
list
Subject
The
April
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 9 23 AM
01
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
Oh my god
of amici has seriously got
around us as
we
me right
on the edge of
tears
Holy crap The
world is
ge ing be er
watch
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
the contents conf
that
you have received
idential
this
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
any transaction
or
with
Treasury
Coie LLP to be used

matter addressed
herein
or
Department
Revenue Code
any attachments
and IRS
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
NOTICE
advise
This communication
the sender
contents
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Johnson
CC
Isaak
Sent
4 1 2014 10 01 13
Subject
Re Oh my god
know
On
right
Apr 1
2014
TRJohnson
Portland
Thomas
1120
Couch
Misha
such
9 59 AM
Coie
AM
a crap
Johnson
com mailto
Perkins Coie
Jr
Perkins
Thomas
TRJohnson
503
From
this just brightened
Jr
Perkins
perkinscoie
com
everything
right up
Coie
wrote
RCTID
Perkins
Coie
LLP
Street
OR
97209
4128
346
2176
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
com mailto
RE
it
is
just not
Oh
PHONE
wonderful
503
Potter
From
We
have
reached
position
Perkins
727
Jr
list
getting
Perkins
Coie
a tipping point
anymore
Coie
at
which
opposing
marriage equality
said in your own
is
brief
LLP
2086
Sheila
mailto
sheila
potter
Sent
Tuesday
April 01
2014 9 23 AM
To
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Subject
com
my god
an acceptable
Misha Isaak
Coie
Tuesday
April 01
2014 9 25 AM
Potter Sheila H
Johnson
Thomas
Subject
The
and
503 727 2176

503 914 8918
E MAIL
Yes
week
Floor
PHONE
CELL
Sent
To
at
Thomas
having
perkinscoie
Johnson
Portland
FAX
was
Timbers
N W
Tenth
Sheila
Oh
my god
of
amici
better
has seriously got
around
us
as we
doj state
Isaak
or us
Misha
me right on the
Perkins
edge
of
Coie
tears
Holy
crap
The
world
is
watch
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
information

law
If
reply e mail
attachments
IRS
CIRCULAR
Perkins
the
contents
is
privileged
confidential
or otherwise
exempt from
you are not the addressee or it

please advise me immediately by
confidential
and
immediately
delete
the
message
and
any
from your system
regulations
contained
keep
that
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
LLP
to
be used
and
ensure
unless
compliance
including
cannot
expressly indicated
any attachments
be used
by the
otherwise
is
taxpayer
not
and
IRS
any federal
intended
for the
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Code or
promoting
herein
or any attachments
ii
NOTICE
have
This
communication
received
message
and
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
privileged
please advise
without
the
copying
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Singer
To
CC
justicelawyers
com kdiaz
aclu or org KJHolm
perkinscoiecom
com rsaxe aclu org TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com Joyce Anna
mary h williams
msn com Potter Sheila H katevts
multco us lake
law works com
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
Cavanaugh
Heather K
Andrew Schlesinger
Sent
4 1 2014 10 27 17
Subject
Amicus
Jonathan
agoad
aclu org
MIsaak
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
AM
Oregon Area Jewish Committee
Brief of
MC and
6 13 cv 01834
6 13 cv 02256
et al In
Support
of
Motion for
SummaryJudgment
MC
Dear Counsel
We
are counsel
Oregon Area Jewish Committee Oregon Board of Rabbis and

We do not read the Federal
the
for
Committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland

requiring the consent
specifically
an abundance
Order but
in
motion
summary judgment
for
truly
we
of caution
in
of
filing
an amicus
write to inform you that
the above
captioned
from around the state of Oregon
Christian clergy
Very
of parties for the
matters
Please
let
we
brief
amicus
an
file
of Civil Procedure
to the Court s February
pursuant
plan to
the
Community Relations
Rules
brief in
favor
of plaintiffs
Jewish and
Additional signatories the brief include

to
us know
if
you do
consent
to our
as
13 2014
filing
yours
Jonathan
Singer
Jonathan
Singer
Associate
Nash
Miller
3400
Direct
LLP
Bancorp
Tower
503 205 2324
E Mail
Bio
Please consider
Social
the
cannot
Avenue
Portland
Oce
Oregon 97204
503 224 5858
Fax
503 224 0155
This
this
e mail
e mail message may contain conden
please do not review
disclose
copy
al
or privileged informa on
or distribute the e mail
nstead
If
you have rece
ived this
please no fy us immediately by
to this message or telephoning us Thank you
IRS CIRCULAR
it
Fih
Blogs
NOTICE
message by mistake
that
503 444 1684
environment before prin ng
CONFIDENTIALITY
replying
111 S
Mobile
230 NOTICE
may express
Unless specically
about tax
maers
be used by you or anyone
States Internal
arrangement
designated
in
the message above
including in
was neither wri en nor intended by the sender or
else for
the purpose of
1 avoiding
tax
penal es tha
Revenue Code or 2 promo ng markeng or recommending to another pa

Each taxpayer
par cular circumstances
should seek advice from the taxpayer s
own
any a achments
Miller
independent tax
may be imposed
rty
any
advice
Nash LLP to be used and

under the United
any transac on
adviser
plan or
based on the taxpayer s
From
Potter
To
Singer
CC
agoad
Sheila
H
H
Jonathan
justicelawyers
com kdiaz
aclu or org KJHolm
perkinscoiecom
com rsaxe aclu org TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com Joyce Anna
mary h williams
msn com katevts
multco us lake
law works com
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
com Cavanaugh Heather K Andrew Schlesinger
aclu org
MIsaak
jmiddleton
perkinscoie
Sent
4 1 2014 10 30 09
Subject
Re Amicus
Judgment
State
defendants
consent
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
On
MC and
Support
et al In
of
Motion for Summary
MC
6 13 cv 02256
Thanks
Apr 1
Trial Counsel
2014
of
at
Singer
Justice
10 27 AM
Singer
MillerNash
Jonathan
com mailto
Jonathan
Singer
MillerNash
com
wrote
Counsel
We are counsel for the

Relations Committee of
Rules
of
amicus
we
6 13 cv 01834
Potter
Jonathan
Dear
AM
Brief of
Civil
Procedure
brief pursuant
write to

Oregon Board of
the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland
We
as specifically
to
the
inform you that
summary judgment
in the
Christian clergy
our filing
Very
yours
truly
Jonathan
Singer
Jonathan
Singer
we
above
Jewish and
consent to
requiring the
Court s February 13
plan
to
file
captioned
an amicus
matters
from around
the
consent
2014
Order
of
the
the
Community
Federal
filing
in an abundance
of
of
signatories
Oregon
and
read
parties for the
brief in favor
Additional
state
of
but
Rabbis
do not
Please
let
plaintiffs
to
the
of
an
caution
motion for
brief include
us know
if
you do
Associate
Miller Nash
3400
U S
LLP
Bancorp
Tower
Direct
503 205 2324
E Mail mailto Jonathan
Social
Blogs
http
http
www
www
consider
Please
111
linkedin
the
NOTICE
you have
or distribute
message
intended
for the
Internal
the
by the
us
or
CONFIDENTIALITY
aspx xpST
singer
CMPY fol
Blogs
confidential
by mistake
please notify
LLP
promoting
based
97204
this e mail
may contain
to
be used
tax penalties
or arrangement
tax adviser
DIG
or privileged
please do not
us immediately
Unless specifically designated

in the
that it
may express about tax matters
avoiding
Code
NUS
Oregon
224 5858
Fax
503 224 0155
www millernash com jonathan
review
disclose
by replying
to
this
you
or Miller Nash
plan
xpqGC
this message
of
trk
printing
Instead
Thank
Portland
Office
503
Bio http
23052
e mail message
received
sender
Revenue
independent
before
e mail
230 NOTICE
any advice
purpose
transaction
This
This
or telephoning
IRS CIRCULAR
attachments
com company
environment
information
copy
Fifth Avenue
millernash com resources
CONFIDENTIALITY
If
S W
Mobile
503 444 1684
Singer MillerNash com
marketing
Each
on the
that
taxpayer
taxpayer
and
cannot
message above
including
was neither written nor
be used
may be imposed under

or recommending
should seek
s particular
advice
to
in any
by you or anyone
the
United
another
from the
party
else
States
any
taxpayer
s own
circumstances
NOTICE
e mail may contain
information

law
If
that
is
privileged
confidential
or otherwise
exempt from

reply e mail
attachments
keep
the
contents
from your system
confidential
and
immediately
delete
the
message
and
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Singer
CC
agoad
aclu org
Misha Isaak
Jonathan
aclu org
Sent
4 1 2014 10 30 58
Subject
Re Amicus
Judgment
com
Joyce Anna
Johnson
Lea Ann Easton
multco us
katevts
justicelawyers
Tom
jmiddleton
rsaxe
kdiaz
Cavanaugh
Heather
com
KJHolm
aclu or org
mary h
perkinscoie
msn com
williams
PotterSheila
Andrew Schlesinger
AM
Brief of
6 13 cv 01834
MC and
et al In
Support
of
Motion for Summary
MC
6 13 cv 02256
from the Geiger case consent
Plaintiffs
Thank you for your
Lake James
participation
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
1 2014
at
Civil
Justice
10 27
AM
Singer
Jonathan
Jonathan
Singer
com
MillerNash
wrote
Dear Counsel
We
are counsel
Oregon Area Jewish Committee Oregon Board
the
for

specifically
an abundance
Order but
in
motion
summary judgment
for
truly
we
in
of
filing
do
the above
captioned
matters
Please
let
and
of Rabbis
not read the Federal
an amicus
Christian clergy
Very
of parties for the
of caution
We
we
brief
amicus
an
file
of Civil Procedure
pursuant
plan to
the
Community Relations
Rules
brief in
favor
Jewish and
to
if
you do
consent
to our
13 2014
of plaintiffs
Additional signatories the brief include
us know
as
filing
yours
Jonathan
Singer
Jonathan
Singer
Associate
Nash
Miller
3400
Direct
LLP
Bancorp
Tower
503 205 2324
E Mail
Bio
Please consider
Social
the
cannot
Avenue
Portland
Oce
Oregon 97204
503 224 5858
Fax
503 224 0155
This
this
e mail
e mail message may contain conden
disclose
copy
al
or privileged informa on
or distribute the e mail
nstead
If
you have rece
ived this
please no fy us immediately by
to this message or telephoning us Thank you
IRS CIRCULAR
it
Fih
Blogs
NOTICE
message by mistake
that
503 444 1684
environment before prin ng
CONFIDENTIALITY
replying
111 S
Mobile
230 NOTICE
may express
Unless specically
about tax
maers
be used by you or anyone
States Internal
arrangement
designated
in
the message above
including in
was neither wri en nor intended by the sender or
else for
the purpose of
1 avoiding
tax
penal es tha
Revenue Code or 2 promo ng markeng or recommending to another pa

Each taxpayer
should seek advice from the taxpayer s
own
any a achments
Miller
independent tax
may be imposed
rty
any
advice
Nash LLP to be used and

under the United
any transac on
adviser
plan or
par cular circumstances
From
Thomas
Johnson
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
agoad
aclu org
Coie
Isaak
Sheila
Misha
4 1 2014 10 34 37
Subject
RE
Judgment
Rummell
consent
plaintiffs
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
com
justicelawyers
Perkins Coie
rsaxe
kdiaz
Holm
aclu or org
Joyce Anna
aclu org
Lea Ann Easton
multco us
Sent
Jonathan
jmiddleton
katevts
Amicus
Perkins Coie
Jr
Singer
Cavanaugh
mary h
Heather
JPerkins
Kristina
msn
williams
Andrew
com
Potter
Schlesinger
AM
Brief of
6 13 cv 01834
MC and
6 13 cv 02256
et al In
Support
of
Motion for Summary
MC
Thanks
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Lake
Sent
Perriguey
Tuesday
To
Singer
Cc
agoad
mary h
Andrew
April
Jonathan
org
aclu
Coie
Perkins
rsaxe
com
com
2014 10 31 AM
H
jmiddleton
aclu
msn com
williams
law works
mailto lake
01
org
justicelawyers
Johnson
com
Thomas R
kdiaz
Jr
doj state or us
sheila potter
aclu or
Perkins
org
Coie
Holm
multco
katevts
Kristina J
anna joyce
us
Coie
Perkins
doj state
or
Lea Ann Easton
Isaak
Misha
us
Cavanaugh
Heather K
Schlesinger
Subject
cv
perkinscoie
Re
Amicus Brief of Oregon Area Jewish Committee
et
In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
al
6 13
01834 MC and 6 13 cv 02256 MC
Plaintiffs
Thank you
Lake James
for
your
participation
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
97205
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
OTLA
On
law works com law works
com
lagojaime
Apr 1 2014
at
10 27
AM
Singer
Jonathan
Jonathan
Singer
MillerNash
com
wrote
Dear Counsel
We
are counsel
for
the
Oregon Area Jewish Committee Oregon Board

specifically
Order but
motion
for
truly
filing
of
do
of Rabbis
an amicus
brief
an abundance of caution we write to inform you that we plan

summary judgment in the above captioned matters Additional
yours
Please
let
and
not read the Federal
in
Christian clergy
Very
of parties for the
We
us know
if
pursuant
to
file
the
Community Relations
Rules
of Civil Procedure
amicus
an
brief in
favor
signatories the brief include
you do
to
consent
to our
filing
as
13 2014
of plaintiffs
Jewish and
Jonathan
Jonathan
Singer
Singer
Associate
Nash LLP
U S Bancorp Tower
Miller
3400
503 205 2324
Direct
Bio millernash
Mail
Please
111
Mobile
received
this
NOTICE
Social
mail
this
be used and cannot be used by you
IRS CIRCULAR
that
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
in
or
message above
the
information
If
you have
please
mail Instead
including
in
notify
any attachments
neither written nor intended the

by sender or Miller
avoiding
2 promoting marketing
with
Treasury
or recommending
Nash LLP
may be
tax
penalties that
to another
to
imposed
party any
from the taxpayer

s own independent
contain
herein
or
Department
and IRS
tax adviser
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
or privileged
or distribute
the
you
taxpayer should seek advice
Coie LLP to be used
may
copy
us Thank
designated
was
confidential
disclose
else for the purpose of
Code
com
circumstances
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
particular
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
Each
or arrangement
Blogs millernash
contain
or telephoning
or anyone
Fax 503 224 0155
mail
not review
specifically
under the United States Internal Revenue

plan
tax matters
it
com
message may
message
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE Unless

may express about
any advice that
transaction
this
Oregon 97204
503 224 5858
linkedin
before printing
This
Portland
Office
message by mistake please do
us immediately by replying to
IRS
Avenue
Fifth
com
consider the environment
CONFIDENTIALITY
503 444 1684
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
VON TER STEGGE

R Jr Perkins
From
Katharine
To
Johnson
CC
Lake Perriguey Singer Jonathan

or
Thomas
Holm
org
mary h
Kristina
agoad
Perkins Coie
msn com
williams
Coie
Potter
aclu org
Isaak
Sheila
Misha
jmiddleton
Perkins
justicelawyers
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
rsaxe
Cavanaugh
com
kdiaz
aclu
aclu org Joyce Anna

Heather
Andrew
Schlesinger
Sent
4 1 2014 11 02 15
Subject
Re Amicus
Judgment
The County
AM
Brief of
6 13 cv 01834
MC and
6 13 cv 02256
et al In
Support
of
Motion for Summary
MC
also consents
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
Suite
OR
Portland
503 988 3377
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Apr 1 2014
Tue
Rummell
plaintiffs
at
Couch
AM
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
Perkins Coie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
wrote
Thanks
consent
Thomas R Johnson
1120
10 34
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
Lake
Singer
Cc
agoad
mary h
Andrew
April
Jonathan
aclu
Coie
Perkins
org
rsaxe
williams
mailto
01
law works
lake
com
2014 10 31 AM
H
jmiddleton
aclu
msn com
org
justicelawyers
Johnson
sheila
potter
com
Thomas R
kdiaz
Jr
aclu or
Perkins
doj state or us
org
Coie
katevts
Holm
Kristina J
anna joyce
multco
us
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
Cavanaugh
Heather K
Schlesinger
Subject
cv
Perriguey
Tuesday
To
com
perkinscoie
Re
Amicus Brief of Oregon Area Jewish Committee
01834 MC and 6 13 cv 02256 MC
Plaintiffs
Thank you for your
participation
et
al
In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
6 13
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
Street
97205
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
1 2014
at
Civil
Justice
10 27
AM
Singer
Jonathan
Jonathan
Singer
com
MillerNash
wrote
Dear Counsel
We
We

specifically
Order but
in
an abundance
of parties for the filing
of caution
we
motion for summary judgment
plaintiffs
Very
truly
in
the above
Jonathan
we
plan to
captioned matters
file
Please let us
know
Singer
Singer
Associate
Miller
Direct
Nash LLP
S Bancorp Tower
503 205 2324
Mail
111 S
Mobile
Bio millernash
Fifth
Avenue
503 444 1684
com
Social
Portland
Office
Oregon
503 224 5858
linkedin
com
ules of Civil Procedure as
ant to the Court s February 13
an
amicus
brief in
Additional s ignatories
yours
Jonathan
do not read the Federal
of an amicus brief pursu
Jewish and Christian clergy from around the state of Oregon
3400
and the Community Relations
are counsel for the Oregon Area Jewish Committee Oregon Board of Rabbis
97204
Fax 503 224 0155
Blogs millernash com
if
2014
favor of
to the brief include
y ou do consent
to our filing
Please
consider the environment
CONFIDENTIALITY
have received
notify
printing
NOTICE
e mail
This e mail message
message by mistake
this
this
any advice
that
it
230
may
NOTICE
may
us immediately by replying to this message
CIRCULAR
IRS
before
Unless specifically
express about tax matters
was
copy
disclose
or telephoning
us
party any transaction
plan
IRS CIRCULAR 230
we
regulations
or arrangement
DISCLOSURE
inform you that
communication
used
Revenue
designated in the message
including
another
NOTICE
received
party
This communication
it
in error
attachments
without
is
avoiding
including
in
tax
any attachments
penalties that
from th e taxpayer
LLP
may be
or recommending
for the
or matter addressed
otherwise
purpose
ii
of
any
own
to another
independent
avoiding
and IRS
federal tax advice
promoting
herein
Department
penalties that
marketing
to
in
be
may be imposed
or recommending
to
or any attachments
contained
Coie LLP
information
If
copying
please
the sender or Miller Nash
marketing
with Treasury
not intended
Revenue Code or
may
promoting
any attachments
Internal
any transaction
or
you
circumstances
above
neither written nor intended by
Code
If
or distr ibute the e mail Instead
Each taxpayer should seek advice
based on the taxpayer s particular
tax adviser
this
States Internal
information
Thank you
to be used and cannot be used by you or anyone else for the purpose of
imposed under the United
or privileged
Thank you
you have
message and any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Jr
Kevin Diaz
LGBT
Perkins
Coie
Holm
Coie
kdiaz
agoad
aclu or org
aclu org
lake
Sent
4 11 2014 12 31 29
Subject
Preparing for Argument Geiger
This communication
Notice
intended
for
and are hereby
Notice 2
To comply
communication
purpose
of
avoiding
recommending
rsaxe
com
jjlslaw
aclu org
Amanda Goad
communication
and
contain
is
we
any attachments
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the

distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
is strictly
it
may
and purpose
not intended
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
all
Lake and
repeat
would
and
discuss
folks
like
confer
to set
on
up a meeting
oral argument
with counsel
We
think
it
arguments as well as brainstorm questions
stayed pending
If
that
IRS regulations
party
JMiddleton
Rummel
to another
Rose Saxe
aclu or org
the outcome
Thanks
Lea Ann
would
next
consolidated
cases
to the argument
on
the
rd
23
to
makes sense to try coordinate part

of the argument so that we don t
that Judge McShane is likely to ask
such as should his decision be
of Sevick or Smithkline in the
are interested in meeting
work
on these
prior
Hi
with
including
Middleton
Johnson Thomas
multco us
katevts
Jennifer
aclu org
any attachments
this
notified
Joyce Anna
PM
individual
you should delete
recipient
attachments
Perkins Coie
com
including
specific
kdiaz
agoad
CC
law works
Sheila
Potter
Kristina
th
9 Circuit
week on Wednesday
April
16 Thursday
April 17
or
Monday
st
April
21
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Isaak
Misha
Holm
Kristina
kdiaz
Perkins
J
Coie
aclu or org
agoad
Potter
Perkins Coie
kdiaz
agoad
aclu org
Sent
4 11 2014 12 51 17
Subject
Re
Sheila
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
lake
Johnson
JMiddleton
Rose Saxe
aclu or org
aclu org
Middleton
rsaxe
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
com Kevin
Diaz
Amanda Goad
jjlslaw
aclu org
Coie
LGBT
com
law works
PM
Rummel
Lea Ann
Great idea
am
available
all
three days you proposed
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
Suite
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Apr 11 2014
Fri
at
12 31
This communication
Notice
copying
Lea Ann Easton
including
and purpose

disclosure
PM
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
may
contain privileged
any attachments
and
is
by law
protected
com
wrote
or con
fidential
you are not the
If
notified
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
avoiding
Hi
including
penalties
any transaction
with
IRS
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
Revenue
is
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
all
Lake and
would
like
to set up a meeting with counsel on these consolidated
to discuss and confer on oral argument
don
We
think
it
makes sense to
repeat arguments as well as brainstorm questions that Judge
decision be stayed pending the outcome of Sevick or Smithkline
in
try
coordinate
McShane
the 9
cases prior to the argument on the 23
is
part of the argument so that
likely
th
Circuit
to ask
such as should
his
we
rd
If
folks are interested
21
st
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
in
meeting
would
next
week on Wednesday
April 16
Thursday
April 17 or
Monday
April
From
H
VON TER STEGGE
Sheila
Potter
To
Katharine
CC
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Perkins
Coie
kdiaz
Jennifer
agoad
aclu org
4 11 2014 3 04 56
Subject
RE
Awesome
idea
for two of
Katharine
Friday
Lea
Isaak
Ann
Holm
Diaz
kdiaz
Lea
kdiaz
aclu org
or
agoad
aclu org
com
Rummel
Thursday
the
17th
2pm or after
is
looking
good
VON TER
STEGGE
2014
mailto
katevts
multco us
12 51 PM
Perkins
Kristina
aclu
kdiaz
agoad
Preparing
Potter
Perkins
or org
org
Re
Coie
aclu
Sheila
Coie
aclu
org
Joyce
Jennifer
or org
lake
Rose
law
works
Anna
Middleton
Saxe
Johnson
Thomas
JMiddleton
rsaxe aclu
Jr
jjlslaw
org
Perkins
com
Amanda
Kevin
Goad
LGBT
com
for Argument Geiger Rummel
Ann
Great
Kate
idea
von
Ter
am available
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
Fri
Apr 11
Notice
County
three
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
LEaston
all
988
500
This
co
2014
12 31 PM
Lea
com mailto
communication
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
and
any attachments
of
97214
Ann
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
multco us
Easton
LEaston
including
intended
distribution
Attorney
information
materials
OR
County
fax
katevts
at
Multnomah
Portland
3377
dorsayindianlaw
the
days you proposed
Stegge
Senior
On
aclu org
HolmKristina J
Perkins Coie
Jr
Easton
aclu
Subject
on our availability
April 11
Misha
Coie
agoad
law works
com Kevin Diaz

Amanda Goad LGBT
jjlslaw
PM
Checking
From
Cc
lake
rsaxe
Thomas
Johnson
JMiddleton
us
Sent
To
Middleton
Rose Saxe
aclu or org
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna
Coie
or the
com
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Hi all
Lake
and
would
the
argument
try
coordinate
questions
the
that
outcome
like
on the
of
part
to
23rd
of
Judge
Sevick
set up a meeting
to
the
discuss
argument
McShane
is
and
so that
likely
or Smithkline
with counsel
confer
to
in the
we
ask
9th
on these
on oral argument
don
such
repeat
consolidated
We
think
arguments
as well
as should his decision
Circuit
it
cases
prior to
makes sense to
as brainstorm
be stayed pending
If
folks
or Monday
Thanks
Lea
Ann
are interested
April 21st
in meeting
work
would
next
week
on Wednesday
April 16
Thursday
April 17
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Thomas
JMiddleton
rsaxe
com Kevin
Amanda Goad
aclu org
4 11 2014 3 22 06
Subject
RE
are free at
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Joyce Anna
Diaz
Lea Ann Easton
Holm
kdiaz
LGBT
Kristina
Perkins Coie
aclu or org
agoad
kdiaz
agoad
aclu org
Jennifer Middleton
Rose
aclu or org
aclu org
lake
Saxe
law
com
works
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
jjlslaw
Sent
Misha and
Perkins Coie
Jr
Katharine
PM
2pm and
after
on
the
Rummel
th
17
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
Friday
April
Katharine
Isaak
Subject
LGBT
Katharine
Friday
Lea Ann Easton

Isaak
rsaxe
agoad
Misha
aclu
Subject
for
Perkins
org
agoad
org
kdiaz
aclu or
org
aclu
Jr
org
lake
Perkins
kdiaz
law works
Coie
Holm
Kristina J
org
Rose Saxe
aclu or
Perkins
rsaxe
Coie
aclu
Jennifer
org
com
Argument Geiger Rummel
Coie
th
Thursday the 17
availability
mailto katevts
Potter Sheila
Middleton
Jennifer
Re
aclu
Thomas R
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
multco
2pm
or after
is
looking good for
two
of us
us
2014 12 51 PM
11
Cc
Coie
com
VON TER STEGGE
April
To
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
Checking on our
idea
doj state or us
potter
Joyce Anna
Coie
jjlslaw
RE Preparing
Awesome
Sent
Perkins
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
From
mailto sheila
2014 3 05 PM
11
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Middleton
com
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
LGBT
Preparing for Argument
Joyce Anna
com
jjlslaw
agoad
aclu
Johnson
agoad
org
Thomas R
Kevin Diaz
aclu
kdiaz
org
Jr
aclu
lake
Perkins
or
org
Coie
Holm
kdiaz
law works
Kristina J
aclu or
org
Rose Saxe
com
Geiger Rummel
Lea Ann
Great idea
am
available
all
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Fri
Notice
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 11 2014
at
12 31
This communication
PM
Lea Ann Easton
including
and purpose
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
may
contain privileged
any attachments
and
is
protected
by law
If
you are not the
com
wrote
or con
fidential
intended recipient
you should

disclosure
copying
notified
or the taking
it
that
any
strictly
is
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
Hi
with
IRS
including
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
Code
Revenue
or
promoting
ii
federal tax advice
and cannot be
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
marketing
to another
party
herein
all
Lake and
would
like
We
don
think
it
makes sense to
21
st
in
would
meeting
next
try
in
the 9
week on Wednesday
coordinate
McShane
If
inform you that any
is
is
likely
to ask
such as should
rd
we
his
th
Circuit
April 16
Thursday
April 17 or
Monday
April
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Kevin Diaz
To
Johnson
Thomas
Perkins Coie
Jr
Sheila
Potter
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
Lea Ann
Easton
CC
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
JMiddleton
agoad
aclu org
4 11 2014 3 23 29
Subject
RE
me
That
Rose Saxe
lake
Sent
Joyce Anna
Coie
com
jjlslaw
law works
Holm
rsaxe
Kristina
Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
Amanda Goad LGBT
aclu org
agoad
acluorg
com
PM
Rummel
me
works for
Kevin
From
To
Cc
Thomas R
Johnson
Sent
Friday
Potter
Misha
Katharine
rsaxe
RE Preparing
Misha and
for
are free at
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins
Coie
TRJohnson
mailto
VON TER STEGGE

Joyce Anna
Coie
Perkins
Rose Saxe
Kevin Diaz
Jr
com
perkinscoie
2014 3 22 PM
11
Sheila
Isaak
Subject
April
Kristina J
Amanda Goad
org
aclu
Lea Ann Easton
Holm
Perkins
LGBT
Coie
agoad
aclu
Jennifer
Middleton
agoad
org
JMiddleton
aclu org
lake
com
com
jjlslaw
law works
2pm and
after
on
the
th
17
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
Friday
April
Katharine
Isaak
From
Sent
LGBT
RE Preparing
Awesome
Katharine
11
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Isaak
rsaxe
Misha
Coie
aclu
Subject
org
Re
jjlslaw
agoad
for
com
aclu
org
Thomas R
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
agoad
aclu
org
am
Coie
Potter Sheila
Middleton
Amanda Goad
available
Kate von Ter Stegge
Jr
Perkins
org
lake
kdiaz
law works
th
Thursday the 17
availability
mailto katevts
JMiddleton
LGBT
or
Coie
Holm
aclu or
org
Kristina J
Perkins
Rose Saxe
rsaxe
Coie
aclu
Jennifer
org
com
multco
agoad
Joyce Anna
jjlslaw
aclu
com
org
Geiger Rummel
Lea Ann
Great idea
aclu
2pm
or after
is
looking good for
two
of us
us
2014 12 51 PM
Perkins
Jennifer
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton

Joyce Anna
Coie
VON TER STEGGE
April
To
Perkins
potter
Checking on our
idea
Friday
mailto sheila
2014 3 05 PM
Perkins
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
Subject
11
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Middleton
com
all
Johnson
Thomas R
Kevin Diaz
agoad
aclu
kdiaz
org
Jr
aclu
lake
Perkins
or
org
law works
Coie
kdiaz
com
Holm
Kristina J
aclu or
org
Rose Saxe
Multnomah
SE Hawthorne
501
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
Suite
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 11 2014
Fri
at
12 31
This communication
Notice
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
may
contain privileged
any attachments
including
and purpose
disclosure
PM
and
is
by law
protected
wrote
or con
fidential
you are not the
If
notified
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
copying
com
it
that
any
strictly
is
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
Hi
with
IRS
including
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
Code
Revenue
or
promoting
ii
federal tax advice
and cannot be
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
marketing
to another
party
herein
all
Lake and
would
like
We
don
think
it
makes sense to
21
st
in
would
meeting
next
try
in
the 9
week on Wednesday
coordinate
McShane
If
inform you that any
is
is
likely
to ask
such as should
rd
we
his
th
Circuit
April 16
Thursday
April 17 or
Monday
April
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
the contents conf
you have received
that
idential
this
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
Department
and IRS
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
contents
Thank you
From
Amanda Goad
To
Kevin Diaz
LGBT
Thomas
Johnson
Perkins Coie
Jr
Sheila
Potter
Katharine
VON
TER
STEGGE
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Isaak
Misha
JMiddleton
Perkins
Sent
4 11 2014 3 32 40
Subject
RE
make
can
work
that
Sent
11 2014 3 23
Friday
Cc
Isaak
Jr
me
Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
com
PM
Rummel
PM
Poer
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna
Amanda Goad LGBT
RE Preparing
Subject
Kristina
law works
or org
Misha Perkins Coie
Rose Saxe
That
April
aclu
Thomas R
Holm
lake
also
kdiaz
Johnson
Rose Saxe
From Kevin Diaz
To
Joyce Anna
Coie
com
jjlslaw
Sheila
Holm
Kris
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
J
Perkins Coie
Jennifer
Lea Ann Easton

iddleton
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
com
jjlslaw
com
com
com
law works
lake
H
na
for
me
works for
Kevin
From
To
Cc
Thomas R
Johnson
Sent
Friday
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
Katharine
rsaxe
for
are free at
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins
Coie
mailto
VON TER STEGGE

Joyce Anna
Coie
Perkins
RE Preparing
Misha and
Jr
TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
2014 3 22 PM
11
Rose Saxe
Kevin Diaz
Subject
April
org
aclu
Lea Ann Easton
Holm
Kristina J
Amanda Goad
Perkins
LGBT
Coie
agoad
Jennifer
Middleton
agoad
org
aclu
JMiddleton
aclu org
lake
law works
2pm and
after
on
the
th
17
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
Friday
April
Katharine
Isaak
From
Sent
LGBT
RE Preparing
Awesome
idea
Katharine
Friday
11
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Isaak
rsaxe
Misha
Coie
aclu
org
jjlslaw
agoad
for
com
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
org
aclu
Thomas R
kdiaz
agoad
aclu
aclu
org
or
Jr
Perkins
org
lake
kdiaz
Coie
Holm
aclu or
org
Kristina J
Perkins
Rose Saxe
rsaxe
Coie
aclu
Jennifer
org
com
law works
on our
Thursday the 17th
availability
mailto katevts
multco
2pm
or after
is
looking good for two of us
us
2014 12 51 PM
Perkins
Jennifer
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
VON TER STEGGE
April
potter
Joyce Anna
Coie
Checking
To
Perkins
mailto sheila
2014 3 05 PM
Perkins
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
Subject
11
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Middleton
com
Coie
Middleton
Amanda Goad
Potter Sheila
JMiddleton
LGBT
agoad
Joyce Anna
jjlslaw
aclu
com
org
Johnson
Thomas R
Kevin Diaz
agoad
aclu
kdiaz
org
Jr
aclu
lake
Perkins
or
org
law works
Coie
kdiaz
com
Holm
Kristina J
aclu or
org
Rose Saxe
Subject
Re
Geiger Rummel
Lea Ann
Great idea
am
available
all
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
SE Hawthorne
501
503 988 3138
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
multco us multco us
On
Apr 11 2014 at 12 31
No ce
This
specic
County Attorney
97214
fax
katevts
Fri
OR
communica on
PM
Lea Ann Easton
including
and purpose and
individual
LEaston
may contain
any a achments
by law
protected
is
If
com
dorsayindianlaw
or
privileged
wrote
conde
you are not the intende
n al informa on intended
d
communica on and or shred the materials and any aachments and are hereby no ed tha
distribu
on
No ce 2
of this
communica on
we
To comply with IRS regulaons
including
any a achments
is
addressed
inform you that any
the Internal Revenue Code or
Hi
or the taking of any ac on based on
ii
it
any disclosure
copying or
S federal tax advi
ce contained
the pu
for
rpose of
promong marke ng or recommending to another party
in this
communica on
avoiding
penal es under
any transac on or
maer
herein
all
Lake and
would
like
and confer on
discuss
to set up a
oral
mee ng
with counsel on these consolidated
We
argument
think
it
makes sense to
try
stayed pending
the outcome of Sevick
are interested in
folks
or Smithkline in the 9
mee ng would
cases
or to the argument on the 23
pri
coordinate part
repeat arguments as well as brainstorm ques ons that Judge McShane
If
for
this
y prohibited
is strictl
and cannot be used
you should delete
recipient
is
likely
the argument so that
of
rd
we don
to
t
such as should his decision be
to ask
th
Circuit
next week on Wednesday
April
16 Thursday
April
17 or Monday
April 21
st
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
This
e mail may contain informa on
law
If
please advise
a achments
me
230 DISCLOSURE
or written
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
privileged
conden
or otherwise exemp
al
conden
al
from disclosure under
u have received
or otherwise that yo
immediately by reply e mail keep the contents

intended
is
it
and immed
iately
this
applicable
e mail in
error
delete the message and any
from your system
IRS CIRCULAR
that
that
any transaction
or
with
Treasury
Coie LLP to be used

matter addressed
herein
or
Department
Revenue Code
any attachments
and IRS
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
NOTICE
advise
This communication
the sender
contents
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
Sheila
Amanda Goad
To
STEGGE
CC
Isaak
LGBT
Misha
JMiddleton
Perkins
jjlslaw
Sent
4 11 2014 3 39 07
Subject
RE
And
ve
Amanda
Sent
Friday
To
Kevin
Goad
that
LGBT
April 11
Diaz
Johnson
Subject
can
JMiddleton
RE
make
that
From
Kevin
Sent
Friday
To
Johnson
Ann
Cc
Easton
Isaak
mailto
Katharine VON
TER
Holm
lake
Kristina
Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
com
law works
agoad
aclu
Rummel
us from the
State
are available
then
org
3 33 PM
R
Coie
Jr
Joyce
com
Perkins
Anna
Rose
Coie
Holm
Saxe
aclu
or org mailto
2014
3 23 PM
Jr
Perkins
Coie
jjlslaw
works
Coie
Joyce
Potter
Kristina
lake
law
lake
kdiaz
aclu
Potter
Anna
com mailto
com mailto
Preparing
time works
Coie
PM
of
Thomas
Perkins
JMiddleton
RE
Perkins
Jr
Sheila
Perkins
works
Katharine
Coie
VON TER
Jennifer
com
also
kdiaz
law
Thomas
April 11
Thomas
lake
Subject
That
Diaz
Misha
Middleton
LGBT
work
Rose Saxe
three
jjlslaw
Preparing
Johnson
Joyce Anna
Coie
com
all
2014
STEGGE
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Middleton
Diaz
just confirmed
From
Kevin
Lea Ann Easton
Holm
Sheila
works
Kristina
JMiddleton
law
or org
jjlslaw
Katharine
J
VON TER
Perkins
Coie
Rose
Saxe
com
STEGGE
Jennifer
Amanda
Goad
com
for me
Kevin
From
Johnson
Thomas
Sent
Friday
April 11
To
Cc
JMiddleton
jjlslaw
rsaxe aclu
org mailto
agoad
org mailto
works
aclu
com mailto
Subject
RE
lake
Thomas
Johnson
1120
N W
are free
Couch
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503
CELL
mailto
914
346
at
com mailto
From
Potter
Friday
Amanda
agoad
org
agoad
aclu
works
Goad
aclu
com
Coie
Kevin
Jennifer
Diaz
Rose
Saxe
LGBT
org mailto
agoad
aclu
org
lake
law
com

2pm
and
Perkins
Coie
after
on the
17th
LLP
4128
2176
Sheila
VON TER
2014
JMiddleton jjlslaw
or org mailto kdiaz
sheila
Lea
Coie
Coie
potter
doj state
com
or us
3 05 PM
STEGGE
Perkins
Perkins
com mailto
mailto
April 11
Misha
Ann
Joyce
Jennifer
Easton
Anna
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
com mailto JMiddleton jjlslaw com

Kevin Diaz
kdiaz aclu
aclu or org
kdiaz aclu or org mailto kdiaz aclu or org
org mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
Amanda
agoad
org mailto
agoad
org
agoad
aclu
Holm
Middleton
rsaxe aclu
aclu
jjlslaw
8918
Katharine
J
com
2176
Sent
Kristina
perkinscoie
Lea Ann Easton

Kristina J
Perkins
JMiddleton
org
Isaak
TRJohnson
Street
97209
727
503
503
E MAIL
Cc
Coie
rsaxe aclu
law
Preparing
Misha and
To
Perkins
3 22 PM
Potter Sheila H
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna
Holm
Middleton
FAX
Jr
2014
Goad
aclu
Rose
Saxe
lake
law
LGBT
org mailto
agoad
aclu
org
Lea
works
com mailto
Subject
RE
Awesome
idea
for two of
Katharine
Friday
Lea
Isaak
Coie
Ann
VON TER
STEGGE
2014
Perkins
Kristina
JMiddleton
the
17th
2pm or after
is
looking
good
mailto
katevts
multco us
12 51 PM
jjlslaw
aclu
org mailto
agoad
org mailto
aclu
Re
Potter
Perkins
com mailto
kdiaz
com mailto
Coie
rsaxe aclu
Lea
Thursday
Easton
or org mailto
Subject
com
on our availability
April 11
Misha
Holm
works
works
Checking
From
Cc
law
us
Sent
To
lake
Preparing
lake
kdiaz
jjlslaw
aclu
org
Amanda
agoad
org
agoad
aclu
Anna
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Middleton
com
Kevin
or org mailto
rsaxe aclu
works
Joyce
Jennifer
JMiddleton
or org
law
Preparing
Sheila
Coie
Goad
aclu
Diaz
kdiaz
kdiaz
aclu
aclu
or org
Rose
Saxe
lake
law
LGBT
org mailto
agoad
aclu
org
com
Ann
Great
Kate
idea
von
Ter
am available
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
3D
3D
County
988
500
days you proposed
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
katevts
urldefense
0A r
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
https
three
Stegge
Senior
katevts
all
proofpoint
com v1
url
u http
m NvoGi0OyJBRL722C9aCr5cO45hAu2FmuQWAs
multco usk
2BuHZLxY
2FtJAfxg 3D
3D
hphQ
0A
0A
s 41bddde6a056493b77a60e0e4871e0c876898691f249de8f2856d093331c8df3
On
Fri
Apr 11
LEaston
Notice
2014
at
12 31 PM
dorsayindianlaw
This
Lea
com mailto
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
com
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
privileged
is
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Hi all
Lake
and
would
the
argument
try
coordinate
questions
the
If
that
outcome
folks
like
on the
of
part
to
23rd
of
Judge
Sevick
set up a meeting
to
the
discuss
argument
McShane
is
in meeting
with counsel
confer
so that
likely
or Smithkline
are interested
and
to
in the
would
we
ask
9th
next
on these
on oral argument
don
such
repeat
consolidated
We
think
arguments
cases
it
as well
prior to
makes sense to
as brainstorm
be stayed pending
Circuit
week
on Wednesday
April 16
Thursday
April 17
or Monday
April 21st
work
Thanks
Lea
Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
attachments
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
IRS
NOTICE
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Jennifer
To
Potter
Middleton
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
VON TERSTEGGE
Katharine
Thomas
Perkins
Jr
Coie
Johnson
CC
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
aclu org
Perkins
Coie Holm
Sent
4 11 2014 9 23 26
Subject
RE
can make
Jennifer
Misha
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu or org
Perkins Coie
Amanda Goad
Joyce Anna
aclu org
lake
LGBT
agoad
law works
com
aclu org
J
Kristina
Isaak
PM
Rummel
Middleton
975 Oak Street
541
Rose Saxe
time
that
Johnson Johnson
OR
Eugene
aclu or org
agoad
PC
Schaller
1050
Ste
97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
NOTICE
CONFIDENTIALITY
have received
this
Misha and
are free at
Thomas R Johnson
Couch
message may contain
This
message in error
Thomas
Johnson
1120
com
justicelawyers
please delete
it
Perkins Coie
Jr
2pm and
after
on
communications
confidential
protected
by the attorney
client
privilege
If
you
and notify the sender
TRJohnson
the
com
perkinscoie
4 11 2014 3 22
PM
th
17
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
CELL 503 914 8918

FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
Friday
rsaxe
RE
Awesome
Sent
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton

Isaak
Saxe
Misha
Subject
Perkins
Jennifer
rsaxe
aclu
Re
LGBT
com
Thomas R
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
agoad
org
aclu
am
Perkins
agoad
aclu
Coie
org
org
th
Thursday the 17
availability
mailto katevts
org
Coie
Potter Sheila
Middleton
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
Jr
aclu or
Holm
lake
Kristina J
aclu or org
kdiaz
law works
Coie
Perkins
Rose Saxe
com
2pm
or after
is
looking good for
two
of us
multco us
LGBT
Joyce Anna
jjlslaw
agoad
com
aclu
Geiger Rummel
Lea Ann
Great idea
kdiaz
11 2014 12 51 PM
Cc
Coie
for
VON TER STEGGE
April
To
Perkins
jjlslaw
Checking on our
idea
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
Amanda Goad
Preparing
Friday
doj state or us
Joyce Anna
Coie
JMiddleton
org
aclu
Subject
From
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Middleton
Jennifer
11 2014 3 05 PM
April
Katharine
Isaak
com
available
all
Johnson
Thomas R
Kevin Diaz
org
agoad
kdiaz
aclu
Jr
aclu
org
Perkins
or
lake
org
Coie
kdiaz
law works
Holm
Kristina J
aclu or
com
org
Rose
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
SE Hawthorne
501
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
Suite
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 11 2014
Fri
at
PM
12 31
This communication
Notice
including
should delete this communication

copying
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
may
contain privileged
any attachments
and purpose
intended for a specific individual
disclosure
Lea Ann Easton
and
is
protected
by law
com
or con
you are
If
wrote
fidential
information
or the taking
you
not the intended recipient
and or shred the materials and any attachments and a re hereby
notified
it
any
that
strictly
is
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
with
including
IRS
Internal
any transaction or matter addressed
Hi
inform you that any
is
Code
Revenue
or
promoting
ii
federal tax advice
and cannot be
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
marketing
to another party
herein
all
Lake and
would
like
to discuss and confer
don
on oral argument
21
st
We
think
it
makes sense to
in
would
meeting
of Sevick or Smithkline
next
in
week on Wednesday
try
the 9
coordinate
McShane
decision be stayed pending the outcome
If
we
any attachments
under the
penalties
regulations
th
is
likely
to ask
such as should
rd
we
his
Circuit
April 16
Thursday
April 17 or
Monday
April
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
penalties
that
to
me
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
230 DISCLOSURE
or written
privileged
ise that
the contents conf
you have received
idential
this
and immediately

intended
is
delete the message
IRS CIRCULAR
NOTICE
otherwise
by Perkins Coie LLP to be used
may be imposed on
another party any transaction
or
with

matter addressed
herein
or
and IRS
Treasury Department
taxpayer
Revenue Code
any attachments
or
for
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
promoting
ii
we
regulations
including
of
is
not
avoiding
NOTICE
advise
This communication
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message
contents
Thank you
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments
without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jennifer
CC
Potter
Middleton
Sheila
kdiaz
agoad
aclu org
Perkins
Coie Holm
4 12 2014 9 36 50
Re
check
will
on the
Have
in
rsaxe
aclu org
Perkins Coie
Jr
Perkins Coie
LGBT
Joyce Anna
agoad
lake
Johnson
Kevin
Diaz
aclu org
law works
com
Kristina
Isaak
AM
so promptly
availability
calling
Misha
Thomas
Amanda Goad
aclu or org
for responding
anyone plans on
kdiaz
Rose Saxe
Subject
all
VON TERSTEGGE
Katharine
Sent
Thank you
aclu or org
of conference
Rummel
Let s calendar
room
in
April 17th at 2
my building
pm
on Monday
with the place
It
do esn
to be determined
have a speaker phone so
if
might not be the best location
it
a great weekend
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Apr
11 2014
can make
Jennifer
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
wrote
OR
Schaller
PC
1050
Ste
97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
received
this
message in error
Johnson
Misha and
Thomas
are free at
Thomas R Johnson
1120
com
NOTICE
CONFIDENTIALITY
Couch
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
trjohnson
perkinscoie
message may contain
Jr
it
after
com
confidential
communications
protected
by the attorney
client
privilege
Perkins Coie
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
This
please delete
2pm and
Tenth Floor
CELL
PM
Middleton
975 Oak Street
541
9 23
time
that
Johnson Johnson
Eugene
at
on
the
TRJohnson
th
17
perkinscoie
com
4 11 2014 3 22
PM
If
you have
From
Sent
To
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Friday
April
Katharine
Isaak
Subject
LGBT
Katharine
Friday
Lea Ann Easton

Isaak
rsaxe
agoad
Misha
Subject
Perkins
Re
aclu
kdiaz
agoad
org
aclu
aclu
org
or
Jr
Perkins
org
lake
kdiaz
law works
Coie
Holm
aclu or
org
Kristina J
Perkins
Rose Saxe
rsaxe
Coie
aclu
Jennifer
org
com
Coie
th
Thursday the 17
availability
mailto katevts
Potter Sheila
Middleton
Jennifer
org
aclu
for
Thomas R
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
multco
2pm
or after
is
looking good for
two
of us
us
2014 12 51 PM
11
Cc
Coie
com
VON TER STEGGE
April
To
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
Checking on our
idea
doj state or us
potter
Joyce Anna
Coie
jjlslaw
RE Preparing
Awesome
Sent
Perkins
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
From
mailto sheila
2014 3 05 PM
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Middleton
11
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
LGBT
Joyce Anna
com
jjlslaw
agoad
aclu
Johnson
agoad
org
Thomas R
Kevin Diaz
aclu
kdiaz
org
Jr
aclu
lake
Perkins
or
org
Coie
Holm
kdiaz
law works
Kristina J
aclu or
org
Rose Saxe
com
Geiger Rummel
Lea Ann
Great idea
am
available
all
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Fri
Notice
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 11 2014
at
12 31
This communication
prohibited
copying
Lea Ann Easton
including
and purpose

disclosure
PM
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
may
contain privileged
any attachments
and
is
protected
by law
If
you are not the
com
wrote
or con
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
Hi
with
IRS
including
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
Code
Revenue
or
promoting
ii
federal tax advice
and cannot be
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
marketing
to another
party
herein
all
Lake and
would
like
We
don
think
it
makes sense to
21
st
in
would
meeting
next
try
in
the 9
week on Wednesday
coordinate
McShane
If
inform you that any
is
is
likely
to ask
such as should
rd
we
his
th
Circuit
April 16
Thursday
April 17 or
Monday
April
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Isaak
To
Misha
CC
Sheila
Potter
kdiaz
rsaxe
Thomas
Johnson
Amanda Goad
aclu or org
Rose Saxe
aclu org
4 12 2014 11 32 01
RE
we
VON TERSTEGGE
kdiaz
aclu org
LGBT
Joyce Anna
Perkins Coie
Jr
agoad
lake
Kevin
Diaz
aclu org
law works
com Holm
Kristina
Perkins Coie
Subject
sure
Middleton
Katharine
Sent
am
Coie
Jennifer
aclu or org
agoad
J
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
AM
can accommodate
the meeting at Perkins Coie
Rummel
will
confirm
availability
on Monday
Misha
Misha Isaak
Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Sent
Lea Ann Easton

Saturday
To
Jennifer
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
Amanda Goad
com Holm
LGBT
Kristina J
on the
availability
calling
in
Johnson
agoad
aclu
Coie
Perkins
Thomas R
agoad
org
Isaak
Misha
Jr
aclu
Perkins
Perkins
Coie
Kevin
Rose Saxe
org
Diaz
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
aclu
org
or
org
Joyce Anna
Coie
Geiger Rummel
so promptly
for responding
anyone plans on
Have
VON TERSTEGGE
Katharine
all
check
will
org
or
Re
Thank you
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 37 AM
Middleton
Sheila
aclu
Subject
LEaston
mailto
12
April
law works
lake
Perkins
of conference
Let s calendar
room
in
April 17th at 2
my building
pm
on Monday
with the place
It
do esn
to be determined
if
it
a great weekend
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Apr
I
11 2014
can make
Jennifer
PM
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
wrote
Middleton
975 Oak Street
541
9 23
time
that
Johnson Johnson
OR
Eugene
at
Schaller
Ste
PC
1050
97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
received
this
NOTICE
message in error
Johnson
Misha and
com
Thomas
are free at
This
message may contain
please delete
Jr
it
Perkins Coie
2pm and
after
confidential
communications
protected
by the attorney
client
privilege
on
the
TRJohnson
th
17
perkinscoie
com
4 11 2014 3 22
PM
If
you have
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
perkinscoie
Potter
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Middleton
Subject
LGBT
Katharine
Friday
Lea Ann Easton

Isaak
rsaxe
agoad
Misha
Subject
Perkins
Re
aclu
kdiaz
agoad
org
aclu
aclu
org
or
Jr
Perkins
org
lake
kdiaz
Coie
Holm
aclu or
Kristina J
Perkins
Rose Saxe
org
rsaxe
Coie
aclu
Jennifer
org
com
law works
Coie
th
Thursday the 17
availability
mailto katevts
Potter Sheila
Middleton
Jennifer
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
org
aclu
for
Thomas R
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
multco
2pm
or after
is
looking good for
two
of us
us
2014 12 51 PM
11
Cc
Coie
com
VON TER STEGGE
April
To
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
Checking on our
idea
doj state or us
potter
Joyce Anna
Coie
jjlslaw
RE Preparing
Awesome
Sent
Perkins
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
From
mailto sheila
2014 3 05 PM
11
April
Katharine
Isaak
Sheila
Friday
com
LGBT
Joyce Anna
agoad
aclu
Johnson
com
jjlslaw
agoad
org
Thomas R
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
org
Jr
aclu
lake
Perkins
or
org
Holm
Coie
kdiaz
law works
Kristina J
aclu or
org
Rose Saxe
com
Geiger Rummel
Lea Ann
Great idea
am
available
all
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
Suite
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 11 2014
Fri
at
12 31
This communication
Notice
copying
Lea Ann Easton
including
and purpose

disclosure
PM
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
may
contain privileged
any attachments
and
is
protected
by law
If
you are not the
com
wrote
or con
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
avoiding
Hi
all
including
penalties
any transaction
with
IRS
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
Revenue
herein
is
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
Lake and
would
like
We
don
think
it
makes sense to
If
21
st
in
would
meeting
next
try
coordinate
McShane
in
the 9
week on Wednesday
th
is
likely
to ask
such as should
rd
we
his
Circuit
April 16
Thursday
April 17 or
Monday
April
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Isaak
To
Misha
CC
Sheila
Potter
kdiaz
Katharine
VON TERSTEGGE
kdiaz
rsaxe
4 14 2014 9 29 44
Subject
RE
room
LGBT
Joyce Anna
aclu org
Perkins Coie Kevin Diaz
Jr
agoad
lake
aclu org
law works
com
Holm
AM
have reserved a conference
Thomas
Johnson
Amanda Goad
aclu or org
Perkins Coie
Sent
Perkins
at
so anyone can participate
capability
Middleton
Rose Saxe
aclu org
Kristina
Coie
Jennifer
aclu or org
agoad
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
Rummel
We
Coie for this meeting
have a
speaker
phone and
other
remote conferencing
remotely
Misha
Misha Isaak
PHONE
To
Cc
Isaak
aclu
12
am
we
Middleton
Jennifer
VON TERSTEGGE
Amanda Goad
com Holm
RE Preparing
sure
2014 11 32 AM
Katharine
org
or
law works
Subject
Sheila
Coie
Perkins
April
Lea Ann Easton

Potter
kdiaz
Misha
Saturday
lake
Coie LLP
503 727 2086
From
Sent
Perkins
for
LGBT
Kristina J
Johnson
agoad
Perkins
aclu
Thomas R
agoad
org
Jr
aclu
Perkins
Coie
Diaz
Kevin
Rose Saxe
org
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
org
aclu
or
org
Joyce Anna
Coie
can accommodate
will
confirm
availability
on Monday
Misha
Misha Isaak
PHONE
From
Sent
Jennifer
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
will
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 37 AM
Re
Amanda Goad
com Holm
LGBT
Kristina J
for responding
all
check
VON TERSTEGGE
Katharine
org
or
on the
anyone plans on
Have
mailto
Middleton
law works
Thank you
12
April
Sheila
aclu
Subject
Coie LLP
Lea Ann Easton

Saturday
To
lake
Perkins
503 727 2086
calling
in
it
Perkins
aclu
Coie
Thomas R
agoad
org
Isaak
Misha
Jr
aclu
Perkins
Perkins
Coie
Kevin
Rose Saxe
org
Diaz
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
of conference
Let s calendar
room
in
April 17th at 2
my building
pm
on Monday
with the place
Easton
Portland
It
do esn
LLP
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Apr
11 2014
at
9 23
PM
org
Joyce Anna
to be determined
Lea Ann
Suite 440
aclu or
Coie
a great weekend
Dorsay
org
Geiger Rummel
so promptly
availability
Johnson
agoad
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
wrote
if
can make
Jennifer
time
that
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak Street
OR
Eugene
541
PC
Schaller
1050
Ste
97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
NOTICE
CONFIDENTIALITY
received
message in error
this
Thomas
Johnson
Misha and
are free at
Thomas R Johnson
1120
com
justicelawyers
Couch
message may contain
This
please delete
Perkins Coie
Jr
2pm and
confidential
communications
protected
by the attorney
client
privilege
If
you have
it
after
on
TRJohnson
the
com
perkinscoie
4 11 2014 3 22
PM
th
17
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
Friday
April
Katharine
Isaak
Sent
Perkins
LGBT
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Isaak
rsaxe
agoad
Misha
Coie
aclu
Subject
Perkins
Jennifer
org
Re
for
aclu
org
Thomas R
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
agoad
aclu
aclu
org
or
Jr
Perkins
org
lake
kdiaz
law works
Coie
Holm
aclu or
org
Kristina J
th
Thursday the 17
availability
mailto katevts
Coie
Potter Sheila
Middleton
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
LGBT
am
available
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Fri
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Coie
aclu
Jennifer
org
com
multco
2pm
or after
is
looking good for
two
of us
us
agoad
Joyce Anna
com
jjlslaw
aclu
org
Johnson
Thomas R
Kevin Diaz
agoad
aclu
kdiaz
org
Jr
aclu
lake
Perkins
or
org
Coie
kdiaz
law works
com
Geiger Rummel
all
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
rsaxe
Lea Ann
Great idea
Perkins
Rose Saxe
2014 12 51 PM
11
To
Perkins
com
VON TER STEGGE
April
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
Checking on our
idea
Friday
potter
Joyce Anna
Coie
jjlslaw
RE Preparing
Awesome
From
mailto sheila
2014 3 05 PM
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
Subject
11
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Middleton
com
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 11 2014
at
12 31
PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Holm
Kristina J
aclu or
org
Rose Saxe
This communication
Notice

disclosure
may
any attachments
including
and purpose
and
is
you are not the
If
fidential
notified
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
copying
or con
contain privileged
by law
protected
it
that
any
strictly
is
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
Hi
with
IRS
including
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
Code
Revenue
or
promoting
ii
federal tax advice
and cannot be
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
marketing
to another
party
herein
all
Lake and
would
like
We
don
think
it
makes sense to
21
st
in
would
meeting
next
try
in
the 9
week on Wednesday
coordinate
McShane
If
inform you that any
is
is
likely
to ask
such as should
rd
we
his
th
Circuit
April 16
Thursday
April 17 or
Monday
April
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
Johnson
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
CC
Potter
Sheila
Thomas
Katharine
rsaxe
4 14 2014 5 27 18
Subject
RE
Jennifer
VON TERSTEGGE
LGBT
agoad
Joyce Anna
aclu org
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Coie
Amanda Goad
org
or
Perkins Coie
Jr
lake
Kevin
agoad
aclu org
law works
Middleton
Diaz
com
kdiaz
aclu or org
kdiaz
Rose Saxe
aclu org
Holm
aclu
From
Kristina
Perkins Coie
PM
Rummel
We
reserved
different
Room
the McLoughlin
place
but to the extent
here
possible
in
which
our office
would be great
it
if
is
room
All
the large conference
we
could
all
meet
together
ll
realize
we
make sure
are
that
all
we
in
have
good snacks
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
From
Sent
trjohnson
perkinscoie
Isaak
Misha
Monday
April
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
aclu
Perkins
Coie
14 2014 9 30 AM
VON TERSTEGGE
Katharine
Amanda Goad
com
Holm
RE Preparing
for
LGBT
Kristina J
Johnson
agoad
Perkins
Thomas R
agoad
org
aclu
Jr
Perkins
aclu
Coie
Kevin Diaz
Rose Saxe
org
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
aclu or
org
org
Joyce Anna
Coie
capability
Middleton
Jennifer
org
or
law works
lake
Subject
Sheila
com
room
Perkins
at
We
have a
speaker
phone and
other
remote conferencing
remotely
Misha
Misha Isaak
PHONE
From
Sent
To
Cc
Isaak
Misha
sure
org
or
law works
Subject
am
Sheila
aclu
Perkins
12
April
Lea Ann Easton

Potter
lake
Coie LLP
503 727 2086
Saturday
kdiaz
Perkins
Jennifer
Middleton
VON TERSTEGGE
Katharine
Amanda Goad
com Holm
RE Preparing
we
Coie
2014 11 32 AM
for
Kristina J
can accommodate
PHONE
Perkins
503 727 2086
Johnson
agoad
Perkins
aclu
Thomas R
agoad
org
Jr
aclu
Perkins
org
Coie
Kevin
Rose Saxe
Coie
Coie LLP
will
confirm
availability
Diaz
rsaxe
Misha
Misha Isaak
LGBT
on Monday
kdiaz
aclu
org
aclu or
org
Joyce Anna
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Saturday
To
Jennifer
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
Re
Thank you
Amanda Goad
com Holm
LGBT
Kristina J
on the
availability
calling
in
Thomas R
Johnson
agoad
aclu
Coie
Perkins
agoad
org
Isaak
Misha
Jr
aclu
Perkins
Perkins
Coie
Kevin
Rose Saxe
org
Diaz
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
aclu or
org
org
Joyce Anna
Coie
Geiger Rummel
so promptly
for responding
anyone plans on
Have
VON TERSTEGGE
Katharine
all
check
will
org
or
law works
Subject
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 37 AM
Middleton
Sheila
aclu
lake
LEaston
mailto
12
April
April 17th at 2
Let s calendar
room
of conference
in
my building
pm
on Monday
with the place
It
do esn
to be determined
if
it
a great weekend
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Apr
I
11 2014
can make
Jennifer
PM
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
com
justicelawyers
wrote
Middleton
975 Oak Street
541
9 23
time
that
Johnson Johnson
OR
Eugene
at
PC
Schaller
1050
Ste
97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
NOTICE
CONFIDENTIALITY
received
this
message in error
Thomas
Johnson
Misha and
are free at
Thomas R Johnson
1120
com
justicelawyers
Couch
message may contain
This
please delete
Jr
Perkins Coie
2pm and
confidential
communications
protected
by the attorney
client
privilege
If
you have
it
after
on
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
4 11 2014 3 22
PM
th
the
17
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
From
Sent
To
Cc
trjohnson
Potter
Friday
Katharine
Isaak
Middleton
Sheila
April
com
11
mailto sheila
Perkins
JMiddleton
LGBT
RE Preparing
potter
doj state or us
2014 3 05 PM
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Amanda Goad
Subject
perkinscoie
Coie
jjlslaw
agoad
for
Lea Ann Easton

Joyce Anna
com
aclu
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
org
agoad
Thomas R
kdiaz
aclu
aclu
org
or
lake
Jr
org
Perkins
kdiaz
law works
Coie
aclu or
com
Holm
org
Kristina J
Rose Saxe
Perkins
rsaxe
Coie
aclu
Jennifer
org
Awesome
From
Sent
Checking on our
idea
Katharine
Friday
VON TER STEGGE
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Isaak
Misha
Coie
Perkins
rsaxe
Subject
Perkins
Re
Coie
Potter Sheila
Middleton
Jennifer
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
org
aclu
mailto katevts
multco
2pm
or after
is
looking good for
two
of us
us
2014 12 51 PM
11
April
th
Thursday the 17
availability
LGBT
Joyce Anna
agoad
Kevin Diaz
agoad
org
aclu
Thomas R
Johnson
com
jjlslaw
kdiaz
org
aclu
Jr
aclu
Perkins
or
org
kdiaz
Kristina J
aclu or
org
Rose Saxe
com
law works
lake
Holm
Coie
Geiger Rummel
Lea Ann
Great idea
am
available
all
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
SE Hawthorne
501
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
Suite
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 11 2014
Fri
at
12 31
This communication
Notice

copying
Lea Ann Easton
including
and purpose
disclosure
PM
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
may
contain privileged
any attachments
and
is
by law
protected
com
wrote
or con
fidential
you are not the
If
notified
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
Hi
with
including
IRS
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
is
Revenue
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
all
Lake and
would
like
don
We
think
it
makes sense to
If
21
st
in
meeting
would
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
next
in
week on Wednesday
try
coordinate
McShane
the 9
th
is
likely
to ask
such as should
we
his
Circuit
April 16
Thursday
April 17 or
Monday
April
rd
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
or
230 DISCLOSURE
that
me
privileged
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
is
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Joyce Anna
To
Thomas
Johnson
Sent
4 15 2014 8 39 57
Subject
RE
You
had
me at
From
Johnson
Sent
Monday
good
Thomas
Jr
April 14
2014
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Potter
Sheila
Amanda
Goad
rsaxe aclu
org
RE
Rummel
snacks
Cc
Subject
Perkins Coie
Jr
To
or org
R
AM
Perkins
Coie
Lea
Katharine
LGBT
Joyce
Preparing
Coie
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
5 27 PM
Ann
Easton
Jennifer
VON TERSTEGGE
agoad
Anna
aclu
lake
law
Kevin
org
agoad
works
com
Middleton
Diaz
aclu
kdiaz
org
Holm
aclu
or org
Rose
Saxe
Kristina
kdiaz
Perkins
aclu
Coie
All
We
reserved
realize we
could
all
the
McLoughlin
are all
meet
Room
here
in different
together
ll
in our office
place
make
but
to
sure that
the
we
which
extent
have
is
the
large
possible it
good
conference
would
room
be great
if
we
snacks
Tom
Thomas
1120
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
From
Isaak
Monday
To
Lea
Cc
Potter
Kevin
4128
8918
2176
Misha
Ann
Perkins
April 14
Diaz
Katharine
kdiaz
aclu
or org mailto
Amanda
Goad
aclu
org mailto
Anna
lake
have
RE
Preparing
reserved
other
LGBT
agoad
law
VON TERSTEGGE
agoad
aclu
works
kdiaz
aclu
org
com
Holm
Johnson
aclu
or org
Thomas
kdiaz
org mailto
agoad
Rose
rsaxe aclu
Saxe
Kristina
aclu
Perkins
Jr
aclu
Perkins
Coie
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
org
org mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
Coie
a conference
remote
com
Middleton
Joyce
9 30 AM
Jennifer
agoad
Subject
com mailto
Coie
2014
Easton
Sheila
or org
and
LLP
2176
Sent
Coie
Floor
Portland
FAX
Perkins
Street
room
conferencing
at
Perkins
capability
Coie
for this meeting
so anyone
can
We
participate
have
a speaker
phone
remotely
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Isaak
Sent
Saturday
To
Lea
Cc
Potter
Diaz
aclu
Anna
Subject
I
RE
am sure we
Monday
Misha
Easton
aclu
Amanda
agoad
LLP
Perkins
April 12
Sheila
kdiaz
or org
Joyce
Misha
Ann
Coie
2086
Jennifer
Katharine
or org mailto
Goad
LGBT
org mailto
lake
law
11 32 AM
Middleton
VON TERSTEGGE
kdiaz
agoad
agoad
works
Preparing
can
Coie
2014
aclu
aclu
aclu
org
com mailto
Johnson
or org
Thomas
kdiaz
aclu
org mailto
agoad
Rose
rsaxe aclu
lake
law
Saxe
works
aclu
com
Jr
Perkins
or org mailto
Coie
kdiaz
Kevin
aclu
org
org mailto
Holm
Kristina
rsaxe aclu
J
Perkins
org
Coie
accommodate
the
meeting
at
Perkins
Coie
will
confirm
availability
on
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
Perkins
727
Ann
Easton
From
Lea
Sent
Saturday
To
Jennifer
Cc
Potter
Diaz
or org
Joyce
aclu
aclu
Isaak
Thank
Katharine
Goad
lake
Misha
Subject
dorsayindianlaw
com
9 37 AM
LGBT
law
aclu
aclu
aclu
org
com mailto
Johnson
or org
Thomas
kdiaz
aclu
org mailto
agoad
Rose
rsaxe aclu
lake
Saxe
law
works
aclu
com
Jr
Perkins
or org mailto
Coie
kdiaz
Kevin
aclu
org
org mailto
Holm
Kristina
rsaxe aclu
J
org
Perkins
Coie
Coie
Preparing
you all
kdiaz
agoad
agoad
works
Perkins
Re
VON TERSTEGGE
or org mailto
org mailto
Anna
LEaston
2014
Middleton
Amanda
agoad
LLP
mailto
April 12
Sheila
kdiaz
Coie
2086
for responding
so promptly
Let
s calendar
April 17th
at
2 pm with the
place
to
be determined
I
will
check
a speaker
Have
Lea
a great
Suite
anyone
503
790
OR
room
in
in my building
it
might not
on Monday
be the
best
It
doesn
have
location
2014
make
that
Johnson
975
Street
Eugene
9 23 PM
OR
Schaller
Ste
wrote
PC
2506
privilege
client
the
com mailto
This
NOTICE
attorney
jmiddleton justicelawyers
message
If
may contain
you have
received
confidential
this message
com
communications
in error
protected
please delete
by the
it
and
sender
Johnson
TRJohnson
Thomas
perkinscoie
Misha and
Thomas
Johnson
N W
are free
Couch
Jr
Perkins
com mailto
at
2pm
and
Perkins
Coie
Coie
TRJohnson
after
perkinscoie
on the
com
4 11 2014
3 22 PM
17th
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
FAX
com
1050
CONFIDENTIALITY
Tenth
justicelawyers
time
1120
Middleton
JMiddleton
97401
683
notify
Jennifer
com mailto
Middleton
Johnson
Oak
at
justicelawyers
Jennifer
541
Columbia
97258
9060
Apr 11
can
97209
727
503
503
E MAIL
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
Cc
conference
on calling
LLP
1 SW
JMiddleton
To
of
plans
weekend
Easton
440
Portland
availability
so if
Ann
Dorsay
On
on the
phone
Sheila
Kristina
VON TER
Misha
J
JMiddleton
2014
jjlslaw
kdiaz
sheila
Lea
Coie
Coie
potter
Ann
Joyce
Jennifer
com mailto
aclu
doj state
or us
Easton
Anna
JMiddleton
or org
Johnson
kdiaz
jjlslaw
aclu
com
Kevin
or org mailto
org mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
Amanda
agoad
org mailto
agoad
org
agoad
aclu
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Holm
Middleton
rsaxe aclu
aclu
com
3 05 PM
STEGGE
Perkins
Perkins
or org mailto
mailto
April 11
Katharine
Isaak
com mailto
Goad
aclu
Diaz
kdiaz
kdiaz
aclu
aclu
or org
Rose
Saxe
lake
law
LGBT
org mailto
agoad
aclu
org
works
com mailto
Subject
RE
Awesome
idea
for two of
Katharine
Friday
Lea
Isaak
Coie
Ann
VON TER
the
17th
2pm or after
is
looking
good
mailto
katevts
multco us
12 51 PM
jjlslaw
aclu
org mailto
agoad
org mailto
aclu
Re
Potter
Perkins
com mailto
kdiaz
com mailto
Coie
rsaxe aclu
lake
kdiaz
jjlslaw
aclu
org
Amanda
agoad
org
agoad
aclu
Anna
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Middleton
com
Kevin
or org mailto
rsaxe aclu
works
Joyce
Jennifer
JMiddleton
or org
law
Preparing
Sheila
Coie
Goad
aclu
Diaz
kdiaz
kdiaz
aclu
aclu
or org
Rose
Saxe
lake
law
LGBT
org mailto
agoad
aclu
org
com
Ann
Great
Kate
idea
von
Ter
am available
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
Fri
Apr 11
Notice
County
three
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
LEaston
all
988
500
This
co
2014
12 31 PM
Lea
com mailto
communication
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
and
any attachments
of
97214
Ann
dorsayindianlaw
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
multco us
multco us
Easton
LEaston
including
intended
distribution
Attorney
information
materials
OR
County
fax
katevts
at
Multnomah
Portland
3377
dorsayindianlaw
the
days you proposed
Stegge
Senior
On
STEGGE
2014
Perkins
Kristina
JMiddleton
Lea
Thursday
Easton
or org mailto
Subject
com
on our availability
April 11
Misha
Holm
works
works
Checking
From
Cc
law
us
Sent
To
lake
Preparing
or the
com
wrote
may contain
purpose
and
privileged
is
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Hi all
Lake
and
would
the
argument
try
coordinate
questions
the
If
that
outcome
folks
or Monday
Thanks
like
on the
of
part
to
23rd
of
Judge
Sevick
the
discuss
argument
McShane
is
in meeting
work
and
with counsel
confer
so that
likely
or Smithkline
are interested
April 21st
set up a meeting
to
to
in the
would
we
ask
9th
next
on these
on oral argument
don
such
repeat
consolidated
We
think
arguments
cases
it
as well
prior to
makes sense to
as brainstorm
be stayed pending
Circuit
week
on Wednesday
April 16
Thursday
April 17
Lea
Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
attachments
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
IRS
NOTICE
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lake Perriguey
CC
Lea Ann Easton

Kevin Diaz
agoad
Jennifer
kdiaz
aclu org
Middleton
aclu or org
Rose Saxe
Potter
kdiaz
rsaxe
Sheila
Amanda Goad
Joyce Anna
aclu org
VON TERSTEGGE
Katharine
aclu or org
Holm
LGBT
Kristina
agoad
J
Tom
Johnson
aclu org
PerkinsCoie
Misha
Isaak
PM
Sent
4 15 2014 9 41 26
Subject
Preparing for Hearing
Attachments
Geiger Rummell Hearing
Geiger
Rummel
Topics docx
Dear Counsel
In preparation
in
for our meeting on Thursday
the briefing which
Of
presentation
consider
particular
issuing a stay
interest
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
2pm
at
Perkins Coie I drafted a table
in talks
amongst counsel
is
Civil
Justice
of
about what top ics
the question
even though no one has asked him to do so
topic
Lake James
at
might be helpful for us to begin a conversation
some
we
of whether Judge
included
some
initial
of the legal issues raised
each might focus on
in
the
McShane might
points
to consider on this
Possible Oral Conversation
Thursday
Topic
Process
Recog Out
of
State Marriages
Ballot Measure
Animus
Domestic
Partnership
Statute
Equal
Protection
Gay
Equal
Protection
Gender
BRO
s Interest
Trans
State s Interest
Protecting
Families
Scrutiny Level
Applies
when
analyzing State s
proffered
interest
April
2 00
State
harmed by ban
Topics
at Perkins Coie
Notes
Fundamental
Due
17
Argument
Presenter
Why no
sua
sponte stay
Loss of constitutional
freedoms
periods of time unquestionably
constitutes
Burns 47 US
Elrod v
irreparable injury
for even minimal
347 373 1976
The
litigants
do not want a
their children
plaintiffs
continuing
all
families to the
deprivation
unconstitutional
protecting
and
harm imposed by the
irreparable
No harm to
Stay will subject
stay
the State
In fact
State s interest in
by an Order
families supported
State is ready to begin issuing licenses
No
appeal here
No
oral
No
guarantee that the 9 th will rule
argument
dismiss case
set in
9 th Circuit
Parties could
court could remand to
UT
SC stayed Kitchen
trial
court
At that time only other on
point decision was Ohio Court s limited as applied

At that time not the unbroken
ruling in Obergefell
string of federal cases
In
3 months
since
SC Kitchen
stay eight
fed
courts in 5 circuits have ruled bans unconstitutional
and from every
Several courts
irreparable
state in
6 th
Circuit
have confronted
the extreme
harm these bans have on
terminally
ill
couples
In
OH MD
Indiana
Illinois
and
just in the last
two weeks
in
Federal Courts have granted immediate
orders allowing terminally
ill
litigants their
individual marriage rights
In the Pedersen case

to stay his decision
at the
2d
Cir
from CT the
The 2d
judge declined
Cir decision in Windsor cited
that Pedersen decision
merits
trial
even after Windsor was pending
6 times in
its
opinion on the
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
4 15 2014 11 30 04
Subject
Mult
Greetings
Sheila
Lake James
in
Co
Mult
Court signed the marriage
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
PM
Co Case 1401 61260 George and
Byers
Sheila
Judge Loy
1906
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
DP
dissolution
judgment
in this
ca
se
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Mary Williams
Sent
4 16 2014 7 56 49
Subject
Fwd
Attachments
Geiger Rummell Hearing
Joyce Anna
PM
Preparing for Hearing
Geiger
Rummel
Topics docx
Hi Mary and Anna
replied to a group email to send this document
oral
conversation
So
next
here you go
and
week and
yesterday to the group of lawyers
to meet in advance
planning
of the
realized that I did not include you both
hope to see you Thursday afternoon
Lake
Begin forwarded
From Lake
Subject
Date
message
Perriguey
Preparing
for
15 2014
April
at
Cc Lea Ann Easton

JMiddleton
kdiaz
Hearing Geiger
9 41 26
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
kdiaz
aclu org
agoad
rsaxe
aclu org
Joyce Anna
aclu org
com
perkinscoie
com
Tom Johnson
aclu or org
agoad
KJHolm
Potter Sheila
multco us
katevts
aclu or org
Rummel
PM PDT
com
justicelawyers
TERSTEGGE
com
law works
lake
kdiaz
agoad
anna joyce
Misha Isaak
Jennifer Middleton
sheila potter
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
aclu org
misaak
Rose Saxe
Holm
or us
perkinscoie
rsaxe
Katharine
com
VON
Kevin Diaz
LGBT
Amanda Goad
aclu or org
doj state
or us
doj state
aclu org
Kristina J
Perkins Coie
com
Dear Counsel
In preparation
in
for our meeting on Thursday
the briefing which
Of
presentation
consider
particular
issuing a stay
interest
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
2pm
at
Perkins Coie I drafted a table
in talks
amongst counsel
is
Civil
Justice
of
about what top ics
the question
even though no one has asked him to do so
topic
Lake James
at
might be helpful for us to begin a conversation
some
we
of whether Judge
included
some
initial
of the legal issues raised
each might focus on
in
the
McShane might
points
to consider on this
Possible Oral Conversation
Thursday
Topic
Process
Recog Out
of
State Marriages
Ballot Measure
Animus
Domestic
Partnership
Statute
Equal
Protection
Gay
Equal
Protection
Gender
BRO
s Interest
Trans
State s Interest
Protecting
Families
Scrutiny Level
Applies
when
analyzing State s
proffered
interest
April
2 00
State
harmed by ban
Topics
at Perkins Coie
Notes
Fundamental
Due
17
Argument
Presenter
Why no
sua
sponte stay
Loss of constitutional
freedoms
periods of time unquestionably
constitutes
Burns 47 US
Elrod v
irreparable injury
for even minimal
347 373 1976
The
litigants
do not want a
their children
plaintiffs
continuing
all
families to the
deprivation
unconstitutional
protecting
and
harm imposed by the
irreparable
No harm to
Stay will subject
stay
the State
In fact
State s interest in
by an Order
families supported
State is ready to begin issuing licenses
No
appeal here
No
oral
No
guarantee that the 9 th will rule
argument
dismiss case
set in
9 th Circuit
Parties could
court could remand to
UT
SC stayed Kitchen
trial
court
At that time only other on
point decision was Ohio Court s limited as applied

At that time not the unbroken
ruling in Obergefell
string of federal cases
In
3 months
since
SC Kitchen
stay eight
fed
courts in 5 circuits have ruled bans unconstitutional
and from every
Several courts
irreparable
state in
6 th
Circuit
have confronted
the extreme
harm these bans have on
terminally
ill
couples
In
OH MD
Indiana
Illinois
and
just in the last
two weeks
in
Federal Courts have granted immediate
orders allowing terminally
ill
litigants their
individual marriage rights
In the Pedersen case

to stay his decision
at the
2d
Cir
from CT the
The 2d
judge declined
Cir decision in Windsor cited
that Pedersen decision
merits
trial
even after Windsor was pending
6 times in
its
opinion on the
Isaak
To
Johnson
CC
Potter
Misha
Sheila
rsaxe
aclu org
4 17 2014 11 00 32
Subject
RE
don
believe
that
VON TERSTEGGE
LGBT
agoad
Joyce Anna
lake
Kevin
agoad
aclu org
law works
Jennifer
Diaz
com
Middleton
kdiaz
aclu or org
Holm
kdiaz
Rose Saxe
aclu org
Kristina
Perkins Coie
AM
number has been
in
call
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
Katharine
Sent
this
Coie
Jr
Amanda Goad
org
or
Perkins
Thomas
aclu
From
circulated
for
Rummel
those who want to
participate
in
today s meeting remotely
Let s use
number
Number 888 857 7291 passcode
Call In
503 727 2086
Misha
Misha Isaak
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Sent
To
Thomas R
Johnson
Monday
Isaak
Cc
Coie LLP
Perkins
Misha
Potter
LGBT
April
agoad
Kristina J
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
VON TERSTEGGE
org
aclu
agoad
Middleton
Kevin Diaz
Rose Saxe
org
aclu
Jennifer
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu
aclu or
org
org
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
aclu
or
org
Amanda Goad
law works
lake
com
Holm
Coie
Perkins
Subject
Coie
Perkins
Katharine
Perkins
Sheila
Jr
14 2014 5 27 PM
RE Preparing
for
We
reserved
different
Room
the McLoughlin
place
but to the extent
here
possible
in
it
which
our office
would be great
if
is
room
All
we
could
all
meet
together
ll
realize
we
make sure
are
that
all
we
in
have
good snacks
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
CELL
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
From
Sent
trjohnson
Isaak
perkinscoie
Misha
Monday
April
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
lake
aclu
or
Perkins
Middleton
Jennifer
Katharine
VON TERSTEGGE
Amanda Goad
com
RE Preparing
Holm
for
Kristina J
room
Misha
Misha Isaak
Perkins
LGBT
Johnson
agoad
Perkins
aclu
Thomas R
org
agoad
Jr
aclu
Perkins
org
Coie
Kevin Diaz
Rose Saxe
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
org
aclu or
org
Joyce Anna
Coie
capability
Coie
14 2014 9 30 AM
org
law works
Subject
Sheila
com
Coie LLP
at
Perkins
remotely
We
have a
speaker
phone and
other
remote conferencing
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Sent
To
Cc
Isaak
aclu
Subject
am
2014 11 32 AM
12
we
VON TERSTEGGE
Amanda Goad
com Holm
RE Preparing
sure
Middleton
Jennifer
Katharine
org
or
law works
lake
Sheila
Coie
Perkins
April
Lea Ann Easton

Potter
kdiaz
Misha
Saturday
for
LGBT
Kristina J
Johnson
agoad
aclu
Thomas R
agoad
org
Jr
aclu
Perkins
Coie
Diaz
Kevin
Rose Saxe
org
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
aclu or
org
org
Joyce Anna
Coie
Perkins
can accommodate
will
confirm
availability
on Monday
Misha
Misha Isaak
From
Sent
Coie LLP
Lea Ann Easton

Saturday
To
Jennifer
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
Amanda Goad
com Holm
LGBT
Kristina J
on the
availability
calling
in
Johnson
agoad
aclu
Coie
Perkins
Thomas R
agoad
org
Isaak
Misha
Jr
aclu
Perkins
Perkins
Coie
Kevin
Rose Saxe
org
Diaz
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
aclu or
org
org
Joyce Anna
Coie
Geiger Rummel
so promptly
for responding
anyone plans on
Have
VON TERSTEGGE
Katharine
all
check
will
org
or
Re
Thank you
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 37 AM
Middleton
Sheila
aclu
Subject
LEaston
mailto
12
April
law works
lake
Perkins
503 727 2086
PHONE
of conference
Let s calendar
room
in
April 17th at 2
my building
pm
on Monday
with the place
It
do esn
to be determined
if
it
a great weekend
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Apr
I
11 2014
can make
Jennifer
PM
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
wrote
Middleton
975 Oak Street
541
9 23
time
that
Johnson Johnson
OR
Eugene
at
Schaller
Ste
PC
1050
97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
received
this
NOTICE
message in error
Johnson
Misha and
com
Thomas
are free at
This
message may contain
please delete
Jr
it
Perkins Coie
2pm and
after
confidential
communications
protected
by the attorney
client
privilege
on
the
TRJohnson
th
17
perkinscoie
com
4 11 2014 3 22
PM
If
you have
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
perkinscoie
Potter
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Middleton
Subject
LGBT
Katharine
Friday
Lea Ann Easton

Isaak
rsaxe
agoad
Misha
Subject
Perkins
Re
aclu
kdiaz
agoad
org
aclu
aclu
org
or
Jr
Perkins
org
lake
kdiaz
Coie
Holm
aclu or
Kristina J
Perkins
Rose Saxe
org
rsaxe
Coie
aclu
Jennifer
org
com
law works
Coie
th
Thursday the 17
availability
mailto katevts
Potter Sheila
Middleton
Jennifer
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
org
aclu
for
Thomas R
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
multco
2pm
or after
is
looking good for
two
of us
us
2014 12 51 PM
11
Cc
Coie
com
VON TER STEGGE
April
To
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
Checking on our
idea
doj state or us
potter
Joyce Anna
Coie
jjlslaw
RE Preparing
Awesome
Sent
Perkins
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
From
mailto sheila
2014 3 05 PM
11
April
Katharine
Isaak
Sheila
Friday
com
LGBT
Joyce Anna
agoad
aclu
Johnson
com
jjlslaw
agoad
org
Thomas R
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
org
Jr
aclu
lake
Perkins
or
org
Holm
Coie
kdiaz
law works
Kristina J
aclu or
org
Rose Saxe
com
Geiger Rummel
Lea Ann
Great idea
am
available
all
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
Suite
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 11 2014
Fri
at
12 31
This communication
Notice
copying
Lea Ann Easton
including
and purpose

disclosure
PM
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
may
contain privileged
any attachments
and
is
protected
by law
If
you are not the
com
wrote
or con
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
Hi
all
with
including
IRS
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
Revenue
herein
is
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
Lake and
would
like
We
don
think
it
makes sense to
If
21
st
in
would
meeting
next
coordinate
McShane
try
in
the 9
week on Wednesday
is
likely
to ask
such as should
rd
we
his
th
Circuit
April 16
Thursday
April 17 or
Monday
April
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lake Perriguey
Sent
4 17 2014 12 01 52
Subject
Prop 8 Switcheroo
http
after
http
m thenewcivilrightsmovement
learning
www
his
com
PM
thenewcivilrights
535009aa025312186cf86260
law works com
entry lead prop 8 defense
attorneys
views evolving
Isaak
To
Johnson
CC
Potter
Misha
Sheila
rsaxe
Subject
RE
am
told that
our conference
you can connect
VON TERSTEGGE
LGBT
agoad
Joyce Anna
aclu org
4 17 2014 1 29 04
lake
service
call
is
Kevin
agoad
aclu org
law works
com
Jennifer
Diaz
Middleton
kdiaz
aclu or org
Holm
kdiaz
Rose Saxe
aclu org
Kristina
Perkins Coie
PM
with
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
Jr
Katharine
Sent
not work
Coie
Amanda Goad
org
or
Perkins
Thomas
aclu
From
having
the conference
Rummel
intermittent technical
problems
using this alternative
If
you
the below 888 number and
call
Same
number719 457 6273
it
does
passcode
Misha
Misha Isaak
From
Sent
Isaak
Potter
LGBT
don
this
aclu
Jr
Perkins
Katharine
agoad
org
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
VON TERSTEGGE
Rose Saxe
org
aclu
Jennifer
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu
Middleton
org
aclu or
org
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
aclu
or
org
Amanda Goad
law works
lake
com
Holm
Coie
Perkins
RE Preparing
believe
Coie
2014 11 01 AM
17
Thomas R
agoad
Subject
Perkins
April
Sheila
Kristina J
Misha
Thursday
Johnson
Cc
Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
To
Perkins
that
for
in
call
number has been
circulated
for
those who want to
participate
in
today s meeting remotely
Let s use
number
Number 888 857 7291 passcode
Call In
503 727 2086
Misha
Misha Isaak
From
Sent
To
Coie LLP
Thomas R
Johnson
Monday
Isaak
Cc
Perkins
503 727 2086
PHONE
Misha
Potter
LGBT
April
agoad
Kristina J
Subject
aclu
Coie
Perkins
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Katharine
VON TERSTEGGE
Perkins
Sheila
Jr
14 2014 5 27 PM
org
agoad
aclu
Jennifer
Middleton
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Rose Saxe rsaxe
org
org
aclu or
aclu
org
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
aclu
or
org
Amanda Goad
law works
lake
com
Holm
Coie
Perkins
RE Preparing
for
We
reserved
different
the McLoughlin
place
Room
but to the extent
here
possible
good snacks
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
CELL
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176
in
it
our office
which
would be great
if
is
we
could
all
meet
together
room
All
ll
realize
we
make sure
are
that
all
we
in
have
E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
perkinscoie
Isaak
Misha
Monday
Perkins
April
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
aclu
VON TERSTEGGE
Amanda Goad
com
law works
lake
Subject
Middleton
Jennifer
Katharine
org
or
Coie
14 2014 9 30 AM
Sheila
com
Holm
RE Preparing
for
LGBT
Kristina J
Perkins
Thomas R
agoad
org
aclu
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Kevin Diaz
Rose Saxe
org
aclu
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
aclu or
org
org
Joyce Anna
Coie
room
Perkins
at
capability
Johnson
agoad
We
have a
speaker
phone and
other
remote conferencing
remotely
Misha
Misha Isaak
PHONE
From
Sent
To
Cc
Isaak
Misha
Saturday
aclu
Subject
am
Sheila
12
we
Middleton
Jennifer
VON TERSTEGGE
Amanda Goad
com Holm
RE Preparing
sure
Coie
2014 11 32 AM
Katharine
org
or
law works
lake
Coie LLP
Perkins
April
Lea Ann Easton

Potter
kdiaz
Perkins
503 727 2086
for
LGBT
Kristina J
Johnson
agoad
Perkins
aclu
Thomas R
agoad
org
Jr
aclu
Perkins
Coie
Diaz
Kevin
Rose Saxe
org
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
org
aclu or
org
Joyce Anna
Coie
can accommodate
will
confirm
availability
on Monday
Misha
Misha Isaak
PHONE
From
Sent
Jennifer
Cc
Potter
kdiaz
will
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 37 AM
Re
Amanda Goad
com Holm
LGBT
Kristina J
for responding
all
check
VON TERSTEGGE
Katharine
org
or
on the
anyone plans on
Have
mailto
Middleton
law works
Thank you
12
April
Sheila
aclu
Subject
Coie LLP
Lea Ann Easton

Saturday
To
lake
Perkins
503 727 2086
calling
in
it
Perkins
aclu
Coie
Thomas R
agoad
org
Isaak
Misha
Jr
aclu
Perkins
Perkins
Coie
Kevin
Rose Saxe
org
Diaz
rsaxe
kdiaz
aclu
of conference
Let s calendar
room
in
April 17th at 2
my building
pm
on Monday
with the place
Easton
Portland
It
do esn
LLP
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Apr
11 2014
at
9 23
PM
org
Joyce Anna
to be determined
Lea Ann
Suite 440
aclu or
Coie
a great weekend
Dorsay
org
Geiger Rummel
so promptly
availability
Johnson
agoad
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
wrote
if
can make
Jennifer
time
that
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak Street
OR
Eugene
541
PC
Schaller
1050
Ste
97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
NOTICE
CONFIDENTIALITY
received
message in error
this
Thomas
Johnson
Misha and
are free at
Thomas R Johnson
1120
com
justicelawyers
Couch
message may contain
This
please delete
Perkins Coie
Jr
2pm and
confidential
communications
protected
by the attorney
client
privilege
If
you have
it
after
on
TRJohnson
the
com
perkinscoie
4 11 2014 3 22
PM
th
17
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
perkinscoie
Potter
Sheila
Friday
April
Katharine
Isaak
Sent
Perkins
LGBT
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Isaak
rsaxe
agoad
Misha
Coie
aclu
Subject
Perkins
Jennifer
org
Re
for
aclu
org
Thomas R
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
agoad
aclu
aclu
org
or
Jr
Perkins
org
lake
kdiaz
law works
Coie
Holm
aclu or
org
Kristina J
th
Thursday the 17
availability
mailto katevts
Coie
Potter Sheila
Middleton
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
LGBT
am
available
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Fri
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Coie
aclu
Jennifer
org
com
multco
2pm
or after
is
looking good for
two
of us
us
agoad
Joyce Anna
com
jjlslaw
aclu
org
Johnson
Thomas R
Kevin Diaz
agoad
aclu
kdiaz
org
Jr
aclu
lake
Perkins
or
org
Coie
kdiaz
law works
com
Geiger Rummel
all
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
rsaxe
Lea Ann
Great idea
Perkins
Rose Saxe
2014 12 51 PM
11
To
Perkins
com
VON TER STEGGE
April
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
Checking on our
idea
Friday
potter
Joyce Anna
Coie
jjlslaw
RE Preparing
Awesome
From
mailto sheila
2014 3 05 PM
JMiddleton
Amanda Goad
Subject
11
VON TER STEGGE
Misha
Middleton
com
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 11 2014
at
12 31
PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Holm
Kristina J
aclu or
org
Rose Saxe
This communication
Notice

disclosure
may
any attachments
including
and purpose
and
is
you are not the
If
fidential
notified
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
copying
or con
contain privileged
by law
protected
it
that
any
strictly
is
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
Hi
with
IRS
including
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
Code
Revenue
or
promoting
ii
federal tax advice
and cannot be
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
marketing
to another
party
herein
all
Lake and
would
like
We
don
think
it
makes sense to
21
st
in
would
meeting
next
try
in
the 9
week on Wednesday
coordinate
McShane
If
inform you that any
is
is
likely
to ask
such as should
rd
we
his
th
Circuit
April 16
Thursday
April 17 or
Monday
April
work
Thanks
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Tom
Sheila
Johnson
Easton
H
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Lake Perriguey Joyce Anna
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Perkins Coie
Mary Williams
misaak
mary h
com LeaAnn
msn com Jennifer
Middleton
perkinscoie
williams
com
PM
Sent
4 17 2014 8 39 11
Subject
Geiger Rummell courtroom logistics
All
I
wonder
when
the
in to
whether
when
courtroom
set up and
we
will
get
ask the
be open
settled before
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
673
Justice
Fifth Avenue
Portland
OR
503 947 4700
971
Trial Counsel
of
1880
97201
Mon
Tu
Suite
Wed
Th
court
and
410
about
whether
the
reserving seats
the
public
courtroom
rushes in
for clients
deputy
What
we
might also ask
might be willing
do you think
to
let
us
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
misaak
H Tom
mary h
williams
4 18 2014 7 58 30
Subject
RE
intended
for
including
specific
and are hereby
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
and purpose
Misha
communication
to another
any attachments
party
is
Perkins Coie
Williams
com
justicelawyers
we
you are not the
If
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
not intended
any transaction
by law
inform you that any
is
protected
is strictly
it
contain
and
to
avoiding
that
IRS regulations
including
recommending
this
notified
may
any attachments
individual
Notice 2
Isaak
AM
you should delete
recipient
attachments
Coie
This communication
Perkins
com Lake Perriguey Joyce Anna Mary

msn com Jennifer Middleton JMiddleton
Sent
Notice
Johnson
perkinscoie
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein
Sheila
think
it
is
a good
idea
waived us through
know
in
the old
the public screening
Eugene
and
federal courthouse
did screening
in
an
it
ancillary
was
arranged
a couple
of times
They
also
room
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
Thursday
Tom
Johnson
Joyce Anna
Subject
April
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 8 39 PM
17
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Mary Williams mary h
Misha
williams
Perkins
Coie
msn com
misaak
Jennifer
perkinscoie
Middleton
com
JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton

justicelawyers
Lake
Perriguey
com
wonder whether
courtroom
will
when we
be open
ask the court about reserving seats for clients
and whether the courtroom deputy might be
seled before the public rushes in
What do you
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Avenue
Fifth
Portland
OR
503 947 4700

971 673 1880
of Justice
Suite 410
97201
Mon Wed
Tu Th F
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
think
we
also
All
might
willing to let us
in
ask
to set
when
the
up and
get
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Thomas
Sheila
mary h
Williams
Perkins Coie
Jr
Isaak
Misha
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
msn com
williams
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Mary
com
multco us
katevts
Sent
4 18 2014 10 50 02
Subject
RE
AM
All
This
what
is
works
propose
get
to
like
Please
send
me
your numbers
We
Rummell
plaintiffs
need 8seats
Let
me
know
also
if
this
email
out today
it
Thanks
Tom
Ms Pew
All
We
counsel in the Rummell and Geiger cases met this week to discuss logistics for the oral argument next Wednesday
make
respectfully
We
for
the following
and
other
may be an
key participants
in
issue
row of the gallery
first
We
these cases
seats be reserved
request that
in
the courtroom
This request could be accommodated
Obviously
we
appreciate
by perhaps
any effort the court can
make
our clients and key guests
we
practicable
members
before
clients
people in the jury box or in the
accommodate
If
requests
are aware that seating in the courtroom

our respective
placing
joint
request that counsel

of
The Rummell and Geiger

Geiger couples
clients
the public are admitted
ability
to
plaintiffs
view
If
and
that
other
is
both sent requests
the hearing
remotely
key participants
possible
please
let
about videotaping
We
be
admitted to
the courtroom to get settled
us know what time
the hearing
have not heard back from
we
or
otherwise
the
should
arrive
facilitating
one
of
the
Court with regard to this
request
Thank you
Tom
Johnson
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
From
Sent
To
trjohnson
Potter
perkinscoie
Sheila
Thursday
Johnson
Williams
Subject
com
April
mailto sheila
Thomas R
mary h
potter
doj state or us
2014 8 39 PM
17
Jr
williams
Perkins
msn com
Coie
Isaak
Jennifer
Misha
Middleton
Perkins
Coie
JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton

justicelawyers
Lake
Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Mary
com
wonder whether
when we
we
might
also
All
ask
when
the
to
courtroom
be open
will
seled before the public rushes in
What do you
willing to let us
in
to set
up and
get
think
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Avenue
Fifth
Portland
OR
503 947 4700
of Justice
Suite 410
97201
Mon Wed
Tu Th F
971 673 1880
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Johnson
CC
Isaak
Sheila
Misha
mary h
Thomas
4 18 2014 10 56 26
Subject
Re
two seats
Lea Ann Easton

Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
Mary
Williams
com
justicelawyers
multco us
katevts
need
Perkins Coie
Coie
msn com
williams
Sent
We
Jr
Perkins
AM
and
this works
for me
Sheila
On
Apr 18
2014
TRJohnson
at
10 50 AM
perkinscoie
Johnson
com mailto
Thomas
TRJohnson
Jr
perkinscoie
Perkins
com
Coie
wrote
All
This
is
what
me know
propose
also if
Please
this email
send
works
me your numbers
We
Rummell
d like
out
today
to
get
it
plaintiffs
need
8 seats
Let
Thanks
Tom
Ms
Pew
All
counsel
argument
We
in the
next
are aware
reserved
cases
If
the
practicable
The
have
not
Thank
Tom
we
get
us know
and
back
be accommodated
Obviously
and
we
that
time we
discuss
joint
may be an issue
clients
by perhaps
appreciate
counsel
and
We
other
placing
the
of
from the
clients
members of
the
and
other
public
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
Perkins
PHONE
OR
503
the
both
sent
requests
Geiger couples
Court with regard
to
about
ability
to
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
914
346
be
in these
jury box or in the
can
Coie
this request
LLP
4128
2176
8918
2176
If
videotaping
view
Street
97209
727
oral
seats
make
key participants
Floor
Portland
that
in the
court
are admitted
Johnson
1120
request
key participants
people
any effort
logistics for the
requests
to
that
be admitted
is
possible
should arrive
Geiger plaintiffs
one
to
following
key guests
request
what
the
courtroom
for our respective
settled before
facilitating
heard
in the
met this week
make
you
Thomas
FAX
to
Rummell
otherwise
could
gallery
Geiger cases
respectfully
seating
our clients
courtroom
please let
the
and
We
courtroom
request
row of
accommodate
that
in the
This
first
Rummell
Wednesday
com mailto
com
the
the
hearing
hearing
remotely
or
We
to
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
To
Sheila
Johnson
Perriguey
Thomas
Joyce
Anna
mary h williams msn

JMiddleton
Subject
mailto
April 17
sheila
2014
potter
Jr
Perkins
Mary
Williams
com mailto
justicelawyers
Geiger Rummell
doj state
or us
8 39 PM
Coie
Isaak
Misha
mary h williams msn
com mailto
courtroom
JMiddleton
Perkins
com
Coie
Jennifer
justicelawyers
Lea
Ann
Easton
Lake
Middleton
com
logistics
All
I
wonder
when
whether
the
in to
when
courtroom
set up and
we
will
get
ask the
be open
court
and
settled before
about
whether
the
reserving seats
the
public
courtroom
rushes in
for clients
deputy
What
we
might also ask
might be willing
to
let
us
do you think
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Portland
OR
947
4700
Mon
971
673
1880
Tu
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
attachments
410
Wed
Th
CONFIDENTIALITY
IRS
Suite
97201
503
This
Justice
Fifth Avenue
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Johnson
VON TER STEGGE

H
Thomas R Jr Perkins
Sheila
Joyce Anna
Perriguey
JMiddleton
4 18 2014 11 03 45
Subject
Re
The County would
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton Lake
msn com
williams
Jennifer
Middleton
AM
also like
two
seats
also include a request from
Please
Isaak
mary h
com
justicelawyers
Sent
Coie
Mary Williams
of us for guidance from
all
McShane on
the substan
ce organization
presentations and whether or not there are specific questions he would like us to consider
in
advance
of our
of the
argument
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
We
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
County Attorney
OR
Portland
97214
fax
multco us
Apr 18 2014
Fri
need two seats
at
10 56
and
this
AM
Potter
works for
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
me
Sheila
On Apr
18 2014
TRJohnson
at
10 50
perkinscoie
AM
com
Johnson
Thomas
mailto TRJohnson
Jr
Perkins Coie
perkinscoie
com
wrote
All
This
this
is
what
propose
email works
me
Please send
like
to get
it
your numbers
We
Rummell
plaintiffs
need 8 seats
Let
me know
also
if
out today
Thanks
Tom
Ms Pew
All counsel in the Rummell and Geiger cases met this
Wednesday
We
We
respectfully
the following
courtroom for our respective

by perhaps placing people
court
make
in
clients
joint
clients
to discuss logistics
issue
participants
first
for the oral argument next
requests
may be an
and other key
the jury box or in the
can make to accommodate our
week
row
and key guests
in
We
seats be reserved in the
request that
these cases
of the gallery
This
Obviou
request could
sly
we
be accommodated
appreciate any effort the
we
practicable
If
The Rummell and
clients
before members of the public are admitted
settled
of the Geiger couples
Geiger plaintiffs
and other key

If
that
is
please
We
let
both sent requests about videotaping
to view the hearing remotely
ability
b e admitted to the courtroom to get
participants
possible
know what
time
we
the hea ring or otherwise
have not heard back
should arrive
facilitating
one
from the Court with regard to
request
this
Thank you
Tom
Johnson
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
97209 4128
503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL trjohnson
From
Thursday
Sent
To
Potter Sheila
Anna
Mary
Williams
JMiddleton
mailto trjohnson
April 17
Thomas
Johnson
com
perkinscoie
2014 8 39
PM
mary h williams
justicelawyers
com
com
doj state or us
Perkins Coie
Jr
perkinscoie
Isaak
Misha
msn com
mailto JMiddleton
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
Lea Ann Easton
williams
justicelawyers
Lake Perriguey
msn com
Joyce
Jennifer Middleton
com
Subject
All
I
wonder whether
will
be open
when we
What do you
public rushes in
willing
we
might also ask when the courtroom
to let us in to set
up and
get settled before the
think
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
1515
SW
Portland
Fifth
OR
Avenue
Justice
Suite 410
97201
503 947 4700
Mon Wed
971 673 1880
Tu Th F
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this

inform you that
any attachments
including
for the purpose of
taxpayer
Code
or
is
ensure compliance
not intended or written by Perkins Coie

avoiding
promoting marketing
ii
To
penalties that
or recommending
LLP
may be imposed on
contain
ed
to be used
the taxpay
to another party any transaction
and IRS
in this
regulations
we
communication

er under the Internal
or matter addressed
Revenue
herein
or
any attachments
NOTICE
error
This communication
please
copying
advise
may
contain privileged
or other confidential
information
or disclosing
the contents
Thank you
and
If
you have received
it
any attachments without
in
From
Potter
To
Katharine
CC
Johnson
H
VON TER STEGGE
Thomas R Jr Perkins
Sheila
Joyce Anna
Perriguey
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Sent
4 18 2014 11 05 37
Subject
Re
We
should make
with the
On
Apr 18
2014
Kate
at
would
like
von
Ter
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
We
Jennifer
Middleton
AM
maybe in a separate
e mail
so that
it
doesn
get
mixed in
of
VON TER
multco us
STEGGE
wrote
two seats
a request
consider
County
from all
of
us for guidance
our presentations
and
in advance
argument
mailto
potter
Attorney
Suite
503
Apr 18
need
msn com
of
the
whether
from McShane
or not
there
on the
are specific
questions
he
Stegge
501
Fri
Lea Ann Easton Lake
Perkins Coie
williams
com
Katharine
katevts
also like
us to
Assistant
sheila
but
11 04 AM
organization
Senior
On
request
also include
substance
would
Misha
multco us mailto
County
Please
Isaak
mary h
logistics business
katevts
The
that
Coie
Mary Williams
988
500
Portland
katevts
co
2014
10 56 AM
at
two seats
and
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
doj state
Multnomah
Potter
or us mailto
this works
Sheila
sheila
multco us
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
for me
Sheila
On
Apr 18
2014
TRJohnson
mailto
at
10 50 AM
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
Johnson
com mailto
perkinscoie
Thomas
TRJohnson
com mailto
Jr
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
Perkins
Coie
com
perkinscoie
com
wrote
All
This
is
me know
what
propose
also if
Please
this email
send
works
me your numbers
We
Rummell
d like
out
today
to
get
it
plaintiffs
need
8 seats
Thanks
Tom
Ms
Pew
All
counsel
argument
We
in the
next
Rummell
Wednesday
are aware
that
and
We
seating
Geiger cases
respectfully
in the
met this week
make
courtroom
the
to
following
discuss
joint
may be an issue
We
logistics for the
oral
requests
request
that
seats
be
Let
reserved
cases
in the
This
first
row of
accommodate
If
the
the
The
have
not
Thank
Tom
we
get
us know
request
that
time we
back
one
appreciate
counsel
other
placing
key participants
people
any effort
of
from the
clients
members of
the
in the
court
in these
jury box or in the
can
make
to
the
and
other
public
key participants
are admitted
If
that
be admitted
is
to
possible
should arrive
Geiger plaintiffs
facilitating
heard
we
and
key guests
settled before
what
and
Obviously
and
clients
by perhaps
the
both
sent
requests
Geiger couples
Court with regard
about
ability
to
to
videotaping
view
the
the
hearing
hearing
or
remotely
We
this request
you
Johnson
Thomas
1120
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
Perkins
Coie
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
503
E MAIL
mailto
From
Sent
97209
727
914
346
8918
2176
tel
tel
tel
503
503
503
727
914
346
com
com mailto
com
Johnson
Perriguey
Sheila
potter
doj state
April 17
Thomas
Joyce
Anna
2014
JMiddleton
Jr
Perkins
Williams
justicelawyers
JMiddleton
or us mailto
Coie
potter
Isaak
com mailto
doj state
Perkins
mary h williams msn

JMiddleton
com mailto
courtroom
Misha
mary h williams msn
com mailto
justicelawyers
Geiger Rummell
sheila
or us
8 39 PM
Mary
mary h williams msn
Subject
2176
com mailto
Thursday
mailto
2176
8918
sheila
mailto
4128
2176
Potter
mailto
To
to
Rummell
be accommodated
gallery
practicable
otherwise
for our respective
could
our clients
courtroom
please let
courtroom
request
com
Lea
Ann
Easton
Lake
mary h williams msn
Jennifer
justicelawyers
JMiddleton
Coie
com mailto
com
Middleton
com
justicelawyers
com
logistics
All
I
wonder
when
the
in to
whether
when
courtroom
set up and
we
will
get
ask the
be open
court
and
settled before
about
whether
the
reserving seats
the
public
courtroom
rushes in
for clients
deputy
What
we
might also ask
might be willing
to
let
us
do you think
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
Portland
OR
Suite
410
97201
503
947
4700
tel
503
947
4700
Mon
971
673
1880
tel
971
673
1880
Tu
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
Wed
Th
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
IRS
CIRCULAR
230
regulations
contained
Perkins
we
DISCLOSURE
Coie
avoiding
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
message
and
it
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
have
To
inform you that
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Thomas
mary h
4 18 2014 11 19 49
Subject
RE
agree
bit
with Sheila
reticent
Thomas
1120
Tenth
Couch
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
Mary
justicelawyers
Williams
com
AM
ll
defer
to
ask this at
Perkins
Coie
others
but
because
of
the
nature
of
this argument
m a
all
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
Lea Ann Easton
for us to
Johnson
N W
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
msn com
williams
Sent
Perkins Coie
Jr
Katharine
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
Sheila
To
Katharine
Cc
Johnson
Perriguey
We
Joyce
Apr 18
2014
at
would
us to
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
v1
url
0A r
doj state
Coie
Isaak
or us
Misha
Perkins
mary h williams msn
com
Coie
Lea
Jennifer
courtroom
but
maybe in a separate
e mail
so that
it
doesn
Katharine
katevts
also like
get
mixed in
consider
STEGGE
wrote
two seats
a request
of
VON TER
multco us
from all
of
us for guidance
our presentations
and
in advance
argument
of
the
whether
from McShane
or not
there
on the
are specific
3138
mailto
u http
County
Attorney
Suite
503
988
500
Portland
questions
co
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
katevts
Multnomah
multco us k
2BuHZLxY
3D
3D
3D
urldefense
proofpoint
3D
0A
0A
s d826d34a649ea22e566c5b24b155a62cff80b19d6d15be4dd9a9a100e2400361
Fri
Lake
logistics
sheila
Easton
com
m YtpaLx4tTPmfxF3vUnXnfpzPaWrqX9bHCXTfx3RYEco
On
Ann
Middleton
Stegge
Senior
katevts
Perkins
Williams
11 04 AM
organization
like
von
Jr
Mary
request
also include
substance
Kate
Anna
that
potter
STEGGE
multco us mailto
County
would
11 06 AM
logistics business
katevts
Please
sheila
2014
Geiger Rummell
should make
The
mailto
justicelawyers
Re
with the
On
VON TER
Thomas
JMiddleton
Subject
April 18
Apr 18
potter
2014
at
doj state
10 56 AM
Potter
or us mailto
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
com
he
We
need
two seats
and
this works
for me
Sheila
On
Apr 18
2014
TRJohnson
mailto
at
10 50 AM
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
Johnson
com mailto
perkinscoie
Thomas
TRJohnson
Jr
perkinscoie
com 3Cmailto TRJohnson
Perkins
Coie
com
perkinscoie
com
wrote
me your numbers
We
Rummell
plaintiffs
d like
out
today
All
This
is
what
me know
propose
also if
Please
this email
send
works
to
get
it
need
8 seats
Let
Thanks
Tom
Ms
Pew
All
counsel
argument
We
in the
next
are aware
reserved
cases
If
the
practicable
The
have
not
Thank
Tom
heard
we
that
time we
back
one
to
following
discuss
joint
may be an issue
clients
by perhaps
appreciate
and
We
other
placing
request
that
oral
seats
key participants
people
any effort
logistics for the
requests
the
in the
court
be
in these
jury box or in the
can
make
to
key guests
counsel
of
from the
clients
members of
the
and
other
public
key participants
are admitted
If
that
be admitted
is
to
possible
should arrive
Geiger plaintiffs
Johnson
Couch
the
both
sent
requests
Geiger couples
Court with regard
to
about
ability
to
videotaping
view
the
the
hearing
hearing
or
remotely
We
this request
Perkins
Coie
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
mailto
97209
727
914
346
8918
2176
503
727
914
346
2176
8918
2176
com 3Cmailto trjohnson perkinscoie
Sheila
sheila
Johnson
doj state
April 17
Thomas
Anna
2014
com
com
or us mailto
Jr
Perkins
Williams
justicelawyers
potter
doj state
Coie
Isaak
Misha
mary h williams msn
Perkins
or us
com mailto
courtroom
JMiddleton
logistics
com
justicelawyers
com 3Cmailto JMiddleton
Coie
com mailto
com 3Cmailto mary h williams msn
justicelawyers
Geiger Rummell
sheila
8 39 PM
Mary
mary h williams msn

JMiddleton
potter
Joyce
JMiddleton
Subject
tel
503
503
com mailto
Perriguey
mailto
tel
tel
Thursday
mailto
4128
2176
Potter
mailto
To
Obviously
request
what
and
be accommodated
settled before
facilitating
N W
Tenth
Sent
us know
courtroom
for our respective
and
the
Johnson
1120
From
we
get
in the
met this week
make
you
Thomas
FAX
to
Rummell
otherwise
could
gallery
Geiger cases
respectfully
seating
our clients
courtroom
please let
the
and
We
courtroom
request
row of
accommodate
that
in the
This
first
Rummell
Wednesday
Lea
Ann
Easton
mary h williams msn

Jennifer
com
justicelawyers
com
Middleton
Lake
com
All
I
wonder
when
whether
the
in to
when
courtroom
set up and
we
will
get
ask the
be open
court
and
settled before
about
whether
the
reserving seats
the
public
courtroom
rushes in
for clients
deputy
What
we
might also ask
might be willing
to
let
us
do you think
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
Portland
OR
Suite
410
97201
503
947
4700
tel
503
947
4700
Mon
971
673
1880
tel
971
673
1880
Tu
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
IRS
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
Wed
Th
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
VON TER STEGGE

R Jr Perkins Coie
Sheila H Isaak Misha
Perkins Coie
From
Katharine
To
Johnson
CC
Potter
Thomas
Williams
mary h
williams
Sent
4 18 2014 11 24 41
Subject
Re
think asking for
some
msn com
Lea Ann Easton
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Mary
com
AM
guidance has a lot of potential
upside and no real downside
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
SE Hawthorne
501
503 988 3138
katevts
On
I
500
Suite
Portland
503 988 3377
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Apr 18 2014
Fri
agree with Sheila
at
OR
11 19
at
AM
Johnson
defer to others
ll
Thomas
but because
Jr
Perkins Coie
TRJohnson
of the nature of this argument I
ma
com
perkinscoie
bit reticent
wrote
for us to ask this
all
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
97209 4128
503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL trjohnson
com
perkinscoie
Original Message
From
Sent
To
Potter Sheila
April 18
Friday
Katharine
Mary
Re
Subject
We
should
doj state or us
AM
VON TER STEGGE
Cc Johnson Thomas
Anna
2014 11 06
Williams
Perkins Coie
Jr
mary h williams
Isaak
Misha
msn com
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
Lake Perriguey
Joyce
com
justicelawyers
make
that
request
but maybe in a separate
e mail so that
it
doesn
get
m ixed
in
with the logistics
business
On Apr
18 2014
at
11 04
AM
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
The County would
Please
also like
two
seats
all
McShane on
the substan
ce organization
argument
in
advance
of our
of the
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior
SE
501
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite 500
OR
Portland
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
co multnomah
mailto katevts
multco us k
Multnomah
2F1
06
or us
multco us
3D
2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
0A r fGEkxHA6QAJYf8dfAugINyMqRW5oFdgW9rJS
https
urldefense proofpoint
com v1
url
http
3D
2BuHZLxY
3D
YtpaLx4tTPmfxF3vUnXnfpzPaWrqX9bHCXTfx3RYEco
3D
0A
0A
d826d34a649ea22e566c5b24b155a62cff80b19d6d15be4dd9a9a100e2400361
On
Apr 18 2014
Fri
potter
sheila
We
at
10 56
AM
doj state or us
need two seats
and
this
Potter
Sheila
works for
doj state or us
wrote
me
Sheila
On Apr
18 2014
TRJohnson
at
10 50
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
AM
Johnson
com
Thomas
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
Jr
Perkins Coie
perkinscoie
3Cmailto TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
com
wrote
All
This
this
is
what
propose
email works
me
Please send
like
to get
it
your numbers
We
Rummell
plaintiffs
need 8 seats
Let
me know
also
if
out today
Thanks
Tom
Ms Pew
Wednesday
We
We
respectfully
the following
court
make
in
clients
practicable
we
clients
week
issue
participants
first
requests
may be an
and other key
If
joint
row
in
We
request that
these cases
of the gallery
This
Obviou
request could
sly
we
be accommodated
and key guests
clients
and other key
participants
b e admitted to the courtroom to get
settled
The Rummell and
Geiger plaintiffs
ability
If
that
is
possible
please
We
let
know what
time
we
the hea ring or otherwise
have not heard back
should arrive
facilitating
one
from the Court with regard to
request
this
Thank you
Tom
Johnson
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
FAX
97209 4128
503 914 8918

503 346 2176
E MAIL
To
perkinscoie
Potter Sheila
Thursday
Sent
Anna
Mary
JMiddleton
2014 8 39
com
justicelawyers
com
perkinscoie
com
doj state or us
PM
msn com
justicelawyers
perkinscoie
doj state or us
Perkins Coie
Jr
williams
mailto JMiddleton
mailto trjohnson
3Cmailto trjohnson
mary h williams
Williams
mailto mary h
com
com
April 17
Thomas
Johnson
503 914 8918
503 346 2176
perkinscoie
mailto trjohnson
From
tel
tel
trjohnson
503 727 2176
tel
Isaak
Misha
msn com
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
3Cmailto mary h williams
mailto JMiddleton
com
williams
Lake Perriguey
Joyce
msn com
msn com
justicelawyers
3Cmailto JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton
Jennifer Middleton
com
justicelawyers
com
Subject
All
I
when we
wonder whether
will
be open
What do you
public rushes in
willing
we
to let us in to set
up and
think
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
1515
SW
Portland
Fifth
OR
Avenue
Justice
Suite 410
97201
503 947 4700
tel
503 947 4700
Mon Wed
971 673 1880
tel
971 673 1880
Tu Th F
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
NOTICE
If
is
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
that
you have received
this
e mail in error
the message
please advise
me

inform you that
Code
for the purpose of
or
is
ensure compliance
idential

avoiding
promoting marketing
ii
To
any attachments
including
taxpayer
the contents conf
penalties that
or recommending
LLP
may be imposed on
contain
ed
to be used
the taxpay
and IRS
in this
regulations
we
communication

or matter addressed
Revenue
herein
or
any attachments
NOTICE
error
This communication
please
copying
advise
may
contain privileged
information
or disclosing
the contents
Thank you
and
If
you have received
it
in
From
Potter
To
Johnson
CC
Katharine
Anna
Sheila
R Jr Perkins Coie
VON TER STEGGE Isaak Misha
Thomas
Mary Williams
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Sent
4 18 2014 11 25 40
Subject
Re
think
can
it
tell
s worth
me why
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
On
agree
Thomas
of
2014
what
if
draft
idea
to
something
send
up and
send
it
to
the
group
and
you
it
Justice
at
11 19 AM
with Sheila
for us to
Johnson
N W
Couch
Johnson
com
wrote
defer
ll
to
ask this at
Perkins
Thomas
others
but
Jr
Perkins
because
of
the
Coie
nature
of
this argument
m a
all
Coie
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
FAX
com
AM
d be a terrible
perkinscoie
reticent
Tenth
Lake PerrigueyJoyce
Middleton
Trial Counsel
Apr 18
1120
Jennifer
Potter
TRJohnson
bit
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
msn com
williams
asking
it
mary h
503
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
To
Katharine
Cc
Johnson
Lake
Subject
On
VON TER
Thomas
The
Kate
Jr
Anna
Perkins
Mary
doj state
Coie
Isaak
or us
Williams
Misha
Perkins
mary h williams msn
com
Coie
Lea
Jennifer
Ann
Easton
Middleton
com
Geiger Rummell
that
potter
STEGGE
courtroom
request
2014
at
but
11 04 AM
multco us mailto
would
logistics
maybe in a separate
e mail
so that
it
doesn
get
mixed in
von
us to
Ter
consider
STEGGE
wrote
from all
of
us for guidance
our presentations
and
in advance
of
argument
Attorney
Multnomah
the
whether
from McShane
or not
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
of
VON TER
multco us
two seats
a request
organization
like
Katharine
katevts
also like
also include
substance
would
11 06 AM
logistics business
County
Please
sheila
2014
justicelawyers
Re
Apr 18
katevts
mailto
Joyce
should make
with the
April 18
Perriguey
JMiddleton
We
Sheila
County
503
Suite
988
500
3377
Portland
fax
OR
County
97214
Attorney
there
on the
are specific
questions
he
katevts
v1
url
0A r
mailto
u http
katevts
co
multco us k
2BuHZLxY
3D
3D
3D
urldefense
proofpoint
com
3D
0A
0A
On
Fri
sheila
We
Apr 18
potter
need
2014
at
doj state
two seats
10 56 AM
Potter
or us mailto
and
Sheila
sheila
this works
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
for me
Sheila
On
Apr 18
TRJohnson
mailto
2014
at
10 50 AM
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
Johnson
com mailto
perkinscoie
Thomas
TRJohnson
Jr
perkinscoie
Perkins
Coie
com
perkinscoie
com
wrote
All
This
Let
is
what
me know
propose
also if
Please
this email
send
me your numbers
works
d like
to
get
We
it
Rummell
out
plaintiffs
need
8 seats
today
Thanks
Tom
Ms
Pew
All
counsel
argument
We
in the
This
first
accommodate
2
to
If
the
not
Thank
Rummell
and
back
request
joint
courtroom
we
that
discuss
may be an issue
clients
by perhaps
appreciate
counsel
settled before
what
and
other
placing
We
of
from the
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
the
PHONE
OR
503
the
the
and
other
public
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
914
346
8918
2176
tel
tel
503
503
503
that
seats
be
in these
jury box or in the

make
to
key participants
both
sent
Geiger couples
to
requests
ability
about
to
videotaping
view
the
this request
Coie
LLP
4128
tel
oral
727
914
346
2176
8918
2176
com mailto
If
that
be admitted
is
should arrive
Court with regard
Perkins
2176
can
are admitted
Street
97209
727
in the
court
Floor
Portland
request
key participants
Johnson
1120
logistics for the
requests
people
any effort
clients
members of
time we
Geiger plaintiffs
one
to
following
key guests
us know
facilitating
heard
Obviously
met this week

the
you
Thomas
FAX
we
in the
make
be accommodated
and
get
Geiger cases
for our respective
could
our clients
to
and
respectfully
seating
gallery
please let
The
Tom
that
practicable
otherwise
have
the
courtroom
possible
We
courtroom
request
row of
Rummell
Wednesday
are aware
reserved
cases
in the
next
com
the
hearing
hearing
remotely
or
We
mailto
From
Potter
Sheila
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
Sent
To
Thursday
Johnson
Lake
April 17
Thomas
Perriguey
mary h williams msn

mailto
Joyce
Jr
Anna
mailto
justicelawyers
JMiddleton
Subject
Perkins
com mailto
potter
Isaak
Misha
doj state
or us
Coie
Perkins
Coie
Lea
Ann
Easton
Williams
mary h williams msn
com

com mailto
justicelawyers
Geiger Rummell
sheila
8 39 PM
Mary
mary h williams msn
JMiddleton
or us mailto
2014
com
JMiddleton
courtroom
com
justicelawyers
Jennifer
Middleton
com
justicelawyers
com
logistics
All
I
wonder
when
the
in to
whether
courtroom
set up and
when
will
get
we
ask the
be open
court
and
settled before
about
whether
the
reserving seats
the
public
courtroom
rushes in
for clients
deputy
What
we
might also ask
might be willing
to
let
us
do you think
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
Portland
OR
Suite
410
97201
503
947
4700
tel
503
947
4700
Mon
971
673
1880
tel
971
673
1880
Tu
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
context
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
IRS
CIRCULAR
Perkins
NOTICE
that
If
is
privileged
you are not
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
be used
that
marketing
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
and
ensure
unless
compliance
including
cannot
any attachments
be used
or recommending
to
expressly indicated
by the
taxpayer
another
party
otherwise
is
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
and
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
ii
addressed
or any attachments
This
received
message
230
we
Coie
promoting
have
law
that
avoiding
herein
information
applicable
from your system
regulations
contained
keep
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
Wed
Th
and
communication
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
please advise
without
privileged
or other
the
by reply email
copying
sender
or disclosing
the
confidential
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Johnson
To
Potter
CC
Katharine
Anna
R Jr Perkins Coie
H
VON TER STEGGE Isaak Misha
Thomas
Sheila
Mary Williams
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Sent
4 18 2014 11 27 33
Subject
RE
Sounds
good
Thomas
1120
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
msn com
williams
Jennifer
Lake PerrigueyJoyce
Middleton
com
AM
Perkins
Coie
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
mary h
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
Sheila
To
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Joyce
Thomas
Anna
it
tell
s worth
me why
Chief
Oregon
Department
agree
or us
Coie
Misha
Perkins
mary h williams msn
com
Coie
Lea
Jennifer
Ann
Easton
Lake
Perriguey
Middleton
com
courtroom
what
if
d be a terrible
Thomas
of
logistics
I
draft
idea
to
something
send
up and
send
it
to
the
group
and
you
it
2014
Justice
at
11 19 AM
perkinscoie
with Sheila
reticent
R
for us to
Johnson
N W
Couch
Johnson
com
wrote
defer
ll
to
ask this at
Perkins
Coie
Thomas
others
but
Jr
because
Perkins
of
the
Coie
nature
of
this argument
m a
all
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
FAX
doj state
Trial Counsel
Apr 18
Tenth
Isaak
potter
Potter
TRJohnson
1120
Perkins
asking
it
Jr
STEGGE
Geiger Rummell
Deputy
bit
11 26 AM
Williams
Sheila
On
sheila
2014
justicelawyers
Re
think
can
mailto
VON TER
Mary
JMiddleton
Subject
April 18
503
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
To
Katharine
Cc
Johnson
Lake
Subject
VON TER
Thomas
Joyce
mailto
sheila
2014
11 06 AM
Jr
Anna
doj state
Coie
Isaak
or us
Williams
Misha
Perkins
mary h williams msn
com
Coie
Lea
Jennifer
Ann
Easton
Middleton
com
request
logistics business
Perkins
Mary
Geiger Rummell
that
potter
STEGGE
justicelawyers
Re
should make
with the
April 18
Perriguey
JMiddleton
We
Sheila
courtroom
but
logistics
maybe in a separate
e mail
so that
it
doesn
get
mixed in
On
Apr 18
katevts
The
2014
County
Please
would
us to
von
Ter
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
url
0A r
STEGGE
wrote
from all
of
us for guidance
our presentations
and
in advance
of
argument
Attorney
Multnomah
the
whether
from McShane
or not
there
on the
are specific
questions
he
Stegge
Assistant
3138
katevts
of
VON TER
multco us
two seats
a request
consider
Senior
v1
Katharine
katevts
also like
organization
like
Kate
11 04 AM
also include
substance
would
at
multco us mailto
County
Suite
503
mailto
u http
988
500
Portland
co
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
katevts
OR
County
multco us k
2BuHZLxY
3D
3D
3D
urldefense
proofpoint
com
3D
0A
0A
On
Fri
sheila
We
Apr 18
potter
need
2014
at
doj state
two seats
10 56 AM
Potter
or us mailto
and
Sheila
sheila
this works
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
for me
Sheila
On
Apr 18
TRJohnson
mailto
2014
at
10 50 AM
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
Johnson
com mailto
perkinscoie
Thomas
TRJohnson
Jr
perkinscoie
Perkins
Coie
com
perkinscoie
com
wrote
All
This
Let
is
what
me know
propose
also if
Please
this email
send
me your numbers
works
d like
to
get
We
it
Rummell
out
plaintiffs
need
8 seats
today
Thanks
Tom
Ms
Pew
All
counsel
argument
We
row of
accommodate
2
to
If
the
that
the
We
could
gallery
our clients
practicable
to
please let
we
get
and
Geiger cases
respectfully
seating
courtroom
request
courtroom
possible
Rummell
Wednesday
in the
This
first
in the
are aware
reserved
cases
next
in the
make
be accommodated
and
joint
we
following
discuss
may be an issue
clients
by perhaps
appreciate
and
other
placing
any effort
logistics for the
We
request
that
key participants
people
the
oral
requests
in the
court
can
seats
be
in these
jury box or in the

make
to
key guests
request
that
counsel
settled before
us know
to
courtroom
for our respective

Obviously
met this week

the
what
clients
members of
time we
the
and
other
public
should arrive
key participants
are admitted
If
that
be admitted
is
The
Rummell
otherwise
have
not
Thank
Tom
and
Geiger plaintiffs
facilitating
heard
back
one
of
from the
the
sent
requests
Court with regard
about
ability
to
to
videotaping
view
the
the
hearing
hearing
remotely
or
We
this request
you
Johnson
Thomas
1120
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
Perkins
Coie
503
E MAIL
mailto
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
tel
tel
tel
503
503
503
727
914
346
com
com
From
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state
Sent
Thursday
Johnson
April 17
Thomas
Perriguey
mary h williams msn

mailto
Joyce
Jr
mailto
potter
Isaak
Misha
doj state
or us
Coie
Perkins
Coie
Lea
Ann
Easton
Williams
mary h williams msn
com

com mailto
justicelawyers
Geiger Rummell
sheila
8 39 PM
Perkins
com mailto
justicelawyers
JMiddleton
Subject
or us mailto
Mary
mary h williams msn
JMiddleton
com mailto
2014
Anna
2176
8918
2176
mailto
To
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
Lake
both
Geiger couples
JMiddleton
courtroom
com
justicelawyers
Jennifer
Middleton
com
justicelawyers
com
logistics
All
I
wonder
when
the
in to
whether
courtroom
set up and
when
will
get
we
ask the
be open
court
and
settled before
about
whether
the
reserving seats
the
public
courtroom
rushes in
for clients
deputy
What
we
might also ask
might be willing
to
let
us
do you think
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
Portland
OR
Suite
410
97201
503
947
4700
tel
503
947
4700
Mon
971
673
1880
tel
971
673
1880
Tu
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
context
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
IRS
CIRCULAR
Perkins
230
we
Coie
that
If
is
privileged
you are not
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
law
that
avoiding
herein
information
applicable
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
from your system
regulations
contained
keep
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
Wed
Th
be used
that
marketing
and
ensure
unless
compliance
including
cannot
any attachments
be used
or recommending
or any attachments
to
expressly indicated
by the
taxpayer
another
party
otherwise
is
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
and
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
addressed
ii
NOTICE
have
This
received
message
and
communication
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
please advise
without
privileged
or other
the
by reply email
copying
sender
or disclosing
the
confidential
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Katharine
H Johnson Thomas R
VON TER STEGGE Isaak
Williams
mary h
Sheila
williams
Sent
4 18 2014 11 27 53
Subject
RE
We
await the opportunity
Jr
Perkins
Misha
msn com
Coie
Perkins Coie
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
Mary
com
justicelawyers
AM
to edit
your email
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Friday
April
mailto sheila
Thomas R
Johnson
Jr
Perkins
Coie

mary h williams msn com
Jennifer
Cc
Katharine
Subject
think
Re
it
Sheila
Deputy
worth asking
Lea Ann Easton
Coie
JMiddleton
Lake
Joyce Anna
Perriguey
Mary Williams
com
justicelawyers
what
if
I draft
something up and send
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr 18
Perkins
it
at
Misha
Middleton
idea to send
terrible
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 26 AM
18
2014
11 19
at
agree with Sheila
Justice
ll
AM
Johnson
defer to others
Thomas
but because
Perkins Coie
Jr
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
m a bit
reticent
com
wrote
for us to ask this
all
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
97209 4128
503 914 8918
FAX 503
E MAIL
346 2176
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
Original Message
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
April 18
Friday
Katharine
Mary
Subject
We
should
business
Williams
Re
2014 11 06
doj state or us
AM
VON TER STEGGE
Cc Johnson Thomas
Anna
Jr
Perkins Coie
mary h williams
Isaak
msn com
Misha
Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
Lea Ann Easton

JMiddleton
Lake Perriguey
justicelawyers
Joyce
com
make
that
request
e mail so that
it
doesn
get
mixed
in
with the logistics
On Apr 18
2014
11 04
at
multco us
katevts
AM
The County would
also like
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
multco us
mailto katevts
two
wrote
seats
Please also include a request from
all
McShane on
the subst ance organization
in
advance
of our
of the
argument
Kate von Ter Stegge
County Attorney
Senior Assistant
SE
501
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite 500
OR
Portland
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
co multnomah or us
mailto katevts
multco us k
Multnomah
2F1
06
multco us
3D
2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
m
s
https
com v1
url
http
3D
2BuHZLxY
3D
3D
0A
0A
On
Apr 18 2014
Fri
potter
sheila
We
at
doj state or us
need two seats
AM
10 56
and
this
Potter
Sheila
works for
doj state or us
wrote
me
Sheila
On Apr 18
TRJohnson
2014
at
10 50
com
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
AM
Johnson
Thomas
mailto TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
Jr
Perkins Coie
perkinscoie
3Cmailto TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
com
wrote
All
This
this
is
what
email works
propose
I
like
Please send
to get
it
me
your numbers
We
Rummell
plaintiffs
need 8
seats
Let
me know
out today
Thanks
Tom
Ms Pew
Wednesday
We
respectfully
make
the following
joint
week
requests
also
if
We

we
practicable
If
The Rummell and

this
clients
Geiger plaintiffs
participants
first
row
in
We
request that
these cases
This
eats be reserved in the
request could
of the gallery Obvious ly
and other key
clients
If
that
is
We
be
participants
possible
please
let
we
be accommodated
admitted
to the courtroom to get
know what
us
time
we
the heari ng or otherwise
ability
issue
and key guests
settled
and other key
clients
court
in
may be an
have not heard back
rom
should arrive
facilitating
one
the Court with regard to
request
Thank you
Tom
Johnson
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
FAX
97209 4128
503 914 8918

503 346 2176
E MAIL
From
Potter
To
Anna
Mary
mailto mary h
com
com
mailto trjohnson
2014 8 39
Jr
com
doj state or us
Isaak
msn com
com
Misha
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
perkinscoie
com
doj state or us
PM
Perkins Coie
msn com
williams
justicelawyers
perkinscoie
3Cmailto trjohnson
mary h williams
mailto JMiddleton
Subject
April 17
Williams
JMiddleton
503 346 2176
perkinscoie
Thomas
Johnson
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
perkinscoie
Sheila
Thursday
Sent
tel
trjohnson
mailto trjohnson
tel
tel
com
Lake Perriguey
Joyce
msn com
msn com
justicelawyers
3Cmailto JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton
williams
Jennifer Middleton
com
justicelawyers
com
All
I
will
wonder whether
be open
when we
What do you
public rushes in
think
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Counsel
of Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
willing
we
to let us in to set
up and
OR
Portland
97201
503 947 4700
tel
503 947 4700
Mon Wed
971 673 1880
tel
971 673 1880
Tu
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
me
Code
or
or
it
confidential
appears
exempt from disclosure under
or otherwise
To
ensure compliance
the contents conf
that
you have received
this
idential
for the purpose of
is
any attachments
ii
privileged
inform you that
taxpayer
is
including
Th F

avoiding
promoting marketing
penalties that
or recommending
LLP
may be imposed on
contain
ed
to be used
the taxpay
and IRS regulations
in this
we
communication

or matter addressed
Revenue
herein
or
any attachments
NOTICE
error
please
copying
This communication
advise
may
contain privileged
information
or disclosing
the contents
Thank you
and
If
you have received
it
in
From
Potter Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Johnson
Misha
mary
Thomas R
Perkins
Perkins
justicelawyers
AM
4 18 2014 11 35 05
Re Geiger Rummell courtroom
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
away
Starting
an interview
logistics
and then
will
write something
await
Lea
up
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr 18
2014
at 11 28 AM
Lea Ann Easton
We
Isaak
Jennifer Middleton
Subject
Hack
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Joyce Anna Mary Williams
com
Sent
Ha
Coie
Lake Perriguey
msn com
h williams
JMiddleton
Jr
Coie
com
wrote
the opportunity to edit your email
Ann
From
Potter Sheila H
Friday
April 18
2014
11 26 AM
Sent
To
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Cc
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Williams mary h williams msn com mailto mary h williams msn com
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton justicelawyers com mailto JMiddleton justicelawyers com
Subject
Re
I think it s worth asking
what if
it d be a terrible idea to send it
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
draft something
up and send
it
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr 18
TRJohnson
2014
at 11 19 AM
perkinscoie
com
Johnson
Thomas R
mailto TRJohnson
Jr
perkinscoie
Perkins
com 3e
Coie
wrote
to the group
Joyce Anna
and you can
tell
Mary
me why
agree with Sheila
I ll
defer to
others
but because
of the
nature of this argument
m a bit
reticent
for us to ask
this at all
Thomas R
1120 N W
Johnson
Perkins
Couch Street
Coie
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176
E MAIL
LLP
com
Original Message
From
Potter Sheila H
Friday
April 18
2014 11 06 AM
Sent
To
Cc
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Mary Williams mary h williams msn com mailto mary h williams msn com
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton justicelawyers com mailto JMiddleton just icelawyers com
Subject
Re
We should make that
logistics business
request
e mail
On Apr 18
2014
at 11 04 AM
mailto katevts
wrote
The
County would also like
so that it
multco us
doesn
get mixed in with the
mailto katevts
multco us 3e 3e
two seats
Please also include a request from all of us for guidance from McShane on the substance organizat
ion of
our presentations
and whether or not there are specific questions he would like us to consider in advance
of
the argument
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
County Attorney
501 SE Hawthorne
503
988 3138
Suite
500
Multnomah
Portland
503 988 3377
County Attorney
OR 97214
fax
katevts
mailto katevts co multnomah or us multco us mailto katevts co multnomah or us 3emultco us
https
multco us k 06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
3D 3D 0A r fGEkxHA6QAJYf8d
fAugINyMqRW5oFdgW9rJS
2BuHZLxY
3D 0A m YtpaLx4tTPmfxF3vUnXnfpzPaWrqX9bHCXTfx3RYEco
3D 0A s d826d34a649ea22e5
66c5b24b155a62cff80b19d6d15be4dd9a9a100e2400361
https
multco us
k 06 2F1 2F wqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
3D 3D 0A r fGEkxHA6QAJYf8dfAugINyMqRW5oFdgW9rJS
2BuHZLxY 3D 0A m YtpaLx4tTPmf
xF3vUnXnfpzPaWrqX9bHCXTfx3RYEco
3D 0A s d826d34a649ea22e566c5b24b155a62cff80b19d6d15be4dd9a9a100e2400361
3e
On Fri
Apr 18
2014 at 10 56 AM
Potter Sheil a H
mailto sheila potter doj state or us 3e 3e
wrote
We need two seats
and this works for me
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
Sheila
On Apr 18
2014
at 10 50 AM
J ohnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
com
son perkinscoie com 3e
mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie com 3Cmailto TRJohnson perkinscoie com
son perkinscoie com 3Cmailto TRJohnson perkinscoie com 3e 3e 3e
wrote
mailto TRJohn
mailto TRJohn
All
This is what I propose
also if this email works
Please send me your numbers

We
I d like to get it out today
Rummell plaintiffs
need 8 seats
Let me know
Thanks
Tom
Ms
Pew
All counsel
Wednesday
We
in the Rummell and Geiger cases met this week to discuss

respectfully
make the following joint requests
logistics
for the oral argument
next
1 We are aware that seating in the courtroom may be an

issue
We request that
seats be reserved in the courtroom for
our respective clients and other key participants in these cases
This request could be accommodated by
Obviously
we appreciate any
perhaps placing people in the jury box or in the first row of the gallery
effort the court can make to accommodate our clients and key guests
2
If practicable
we request
courtroom
to get settled before
what time we should arrive
that counsel
clients
members of the public
3
The Rummell and Geiger plaintiffs
facilitating one of the Geiger couples
the Court with regard to this request
Thank
and other key participants

be admitted to the
are admi tted
If that is possible
please let

ability to view the hearing remotel
the hearing or otherwise

y We have not heard back
us know
from
you
Tom Johnson
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch Street
1120 N W
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176 tel 503 727 2176
CELL
503 914 8918 tel 503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176 tel 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson perkinscoie com mailto trjohnson perkinscoie com
mailto trjohnson perkinscoie
on perkinscoie com 3e
mailto trjohnson perkinscoie com 3Cmailto
n perkinscoie
com 3Cmailto trjohnson perkinscoie com 3e 3e
com
com
mailto trjohns
mailto trjohnso
From
Potter Sheila H
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us
mailto sheila potter doj state o
r us 3e
Sent
Thursday
April 17
2014 8 39 PM
To
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Joyce
Anna
Mary Williams
mary h williams msn com mailto mary h williams msn com

mailto mary h williams msn com
m ailto mary h willi
ams msn com 3e
mailto mary h williams msn com 3Cmailto mary h williams msn com
mailto mary h williams msn
com 3Cmailto mary h williams msn com 3e 3e
Jennifer Middleton
com
mailto JMiddleton justicelawyers com
m
JMiddleton justicelawyers com mailto JMiddleton justicelawyers
ailto JMiddleton justicelawyers com 3e
mailto JMiddleton justicelawyers com 3Cmailto JMiddleton justicelawy
ers com
Subject
mailto JMiddleton justicelawyers com 3Cmailto JMiddleton justicelawyers

com 3e 3e
All
when we ask the court about reserving seats for clients
we might also ask when the
I wonder whether
courtroom
will be open
and whether the courtroom deputy might be willing to let us in to set up and get
settled before the public rushes in
What do you think
Sheila
Sheila H
Potter
Deputy Chief Trial Counsel
Suite 410
Portland
OR 97201
Mon
503 947 4700 tel 503 947 4700
971 673 1880 tel 971 673 1880
Tu
CONFIDENTIALITY
Wed
Th
F
NOTICE

confidential
If you are not the addressee or it appears from the
context or otherwise that you have
from your system

we inform
you that
the taxpayer
for the purpose of
i
ii
promoting
marketing
or recommending
to another party any transaction or
or any attachments
NOTICE This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information If you
reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
Thank you
contents
have received
without
it
in error
copying
adv
ise the sender
or disclosing the
please
by
From
Thomas
Johnson
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Jr
Potter
Perkins Coie
Sheila
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
Williams
mary h
williams
Sent
4 18 2014 11 35 20
Subject
RE
H
Isaak
Misha
msn com
Perkins Coie
Jennifer
Middleton

JMiddleton
Mary
com
justicelawyers
AM
Lea Ann
How many
seats
do you
Was
need
all
the logistics email ok with you
Thanks
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
perkinscoie
com
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
April
mailto
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 11 28 AM
18
H Johnson Thomas R Jr Perkins Coie

VON TER STEGGE Isaak Misha Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
Subject
We
Sheila
RE Geiger Rummell courtroom
to edit
Lake
Perriguey
justicelawyers
Joyce Anna
Mary Williams
com
logistics
your email
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Johnson
Sheila
April
mailto sheila
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie

Jennifer
Cc
Katharine
Subject
think
terrible
Sheila
Deputy
Re
it
worth asking
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Lake
Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Mary Williams
com
what
if
I draft
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr 18
I
Perkins
it
at
Misha
Middleton
idea to send
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 26 AM
18
2014
at
agree with Sheila
Justice
11 19
ll
AM
Johnson
defer to others
all
Thomas
Johnson
Perkins Coie
LLP
Thomas
but because
Jr
Perkins Coie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
m a bit
reticent
com
wrote
for us to ask this
1120
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
97209 4128
CELL 503 914 8918

FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
com
perkinscoie
Original Message
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
April 18
Friday
Katharine
Mary
Subject
We
should
Perkins Coie
Jr
mary h williams
Williams
Re
doj state or us
AM
VON TER STEGGE
Cc Johnson Thomas
Anna
2014 11 06
Misha
Isaak
msn com
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
Lake Perriguey
Joyce
com
justicelawyers
make
that
request
e mail so that
it
doesn
get
mixed
in
with the logistics
business
On Apr 18
katevts
2014
11 04
at
multco us
The County would
AM
also like
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
multco us
mailto katevts
two
wrote
seats
all
McShane on
in
advance
of our
of the
argument
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior Assistant
501
SE
County Attorney
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
Suite 500
OR
Portland
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
mailto katevts
katevts
multco us k
Multnomah
06
2F1
co multnomah or us
multco us
3D
2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
m
s
https
3D
2BuHZLxY
3D 0A
3D
On
Fri
sheila
We
Apr 18 2014
potter
at
10 56
doj state or us
need two seats
and
this
AM
Potter
Sheila
works for
me
H
doj state or us
wrote
0A
com v1
url
http
Sheila
On Apr 18
2014
TRJohnson
at
com
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
AM
10 50
Johnson
mailto TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
Thomas
Perkins Coie
Jr
perkinscoie
3Cmailto TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
com
wrote
All
This
this
what
is
propose
email works
like
Please send
to get
it
me
We
your numbers
Rummell
need 8
plaintiffs
seats
Let
me know
also
if
out today
Thanks
Tom
Ms Pew
We
Wednesday
We
make
respectfully

If
settled
practicable
we
joint
and other key
clients

clients
The Rummell and
Geiger plaintiffs
issue
participants
first
row
in
We
request that
these cases
clients
and other key

If
that
is
please
We
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Tenth Floor
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
97209 4128
503 914 8918
FAX 503
E MAIL
346 2176
trjohnson
tel
tel
tel
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
503 346 2176
perkinscoie
com
request could
we
be accommodated
mailto trjohnson
admitted
us
perkinscoie
com
know what
time
we
have not heard back
Street
Portland
be
let
Johnson
1120
This
participants
possible
Thank you
Thomas
request
Tom
and key guests
ability
requests
may be an

this
in
court
the following
week
rom
should arrive
facilitating
one
mailto trjohnson
From
Potter
To
Anna
Sheila
Thursday
Sent
Mary
mailto mary h
3Cmailto trjohnson
2014 8 39
Jr
mailto JMiddleton
doj state or us
Perkins Coie
msn com
williams
com
justicelawyers
Isaak
msn com
com
Misha
doj state or us
williams
Joyce
Jennifer Middleton
com
justicelawyers
3Cmailto JMiddleton
Lake Perriguey
msn com
msn com
com
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
perkinscoie
PM
mary h williams
Williams
JMiddleton
April 17
Thomas
Johnson
com
perkinscoie
justicelawyers
com
Subject
All
I
will
when we
wonder whether
be open
What do you
public rushes in
we
willing
to let us in to set
up and
think
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Counsel
Trial
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Fifth
OR
Portland
of Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
503 947 4700
tel
503 947 4700
Mon Wed
971 673 1880
tel
971 673 1880
Tu
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
me
Code
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
To
ensure compliance
the contents conf
that
you have received
this
idential
for the purpose of
is
any attachments
ii
privileged
inform you that
taxpayer
is
including
Th F

avoiding
promoting marketing
penalties that
or recommending
LLP
may be imposed on
contain
ed
to be used
the taxpay
and IRS regulations
in this
we
communication

or matter addressed
Revenue
herein
or
any attachments
NOTICE
error
please
copying
This communication
advise
may
contain privileged
information
or disclosing
the contents
Thank you
and
If
you have received
it
in
From
Potter Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Johnson
Misha
mary
Thomas R
Perkins
h williams
JMiddleton
Jr
Coie
Perkins
msn com
justicelawyers
Ms
Pew
tossing out for your various
be in Portland
Isaak
PM
4 18 2014 12 14 23
Re Geiger Rummell courtroom
will
VON TER STEGGE
Jennifer Middleton
Subject
but
Katharine
Joyce Anna Mary Williams
com
Sent
First draft
Coie
Lake Perriguey
logistics
red pens
please have
at it
Getting
on the road
momentarily
in a bit
I m writing on behalf of counsel for all the parties in the Geiger and Rummell cases
We met this week to
discuss plans for oral argument
and we are wondering whether there are any areas that Judge McShane would
particularly like us to cover in argument
or q uestions that the Judge would like us to answer in the course
of argument
We have a lot of lawyers and the briefing was lengthy
and we would like to focus argument on
those areas that will be most helpful to the Court
We
direction
but we also wanted to ask whether the Judge
most useful for him
can certainly prepare argument w

ithout the Court s
might have some thoughts on how argument would be
On Apr 18
2014
at 11 28 AM
Lea Ann Easton
We
Lea
await
co
wrote
Ann
From
Potter Sheila H
Friday
April 18
2014 11 26 AM
Sent
To
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Cc
Isaak
Misha
Per kins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Jennifer Middleton
Subject
Re
Geiger Rummell courtroom
logistics
Joyce Anna
Mary
think
Sheila
it
worth asking
what
if
draft
something
up and send
it
to the
group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
terrible
idea
to
send
it
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Oregon Department
Counsel
of Justice
On Apr 18 2014
TRJohnson
at 11 19
AM
Johnson
Thomas R
perkinscoie com
mailto TRJohnson
I agree with Sheila

I ll
for us to ask this at all
defer
to others
Jr
Perkins Coie
perkinscoie com 3e
but because
wrote
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch Street
1120 N W
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson perkinscoie com mailto trjohnson perkinscoie
m a bit
reticent
com
Original Message
Potter Sheila H
From
Friday
April 18
2014 11 06 AM
Sent
To
Cc
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Jennifer Middleton
Subject
Re
We should make that
logistics business
request
e mail
On Apr 18
2014
at 11 04 AM
mailto katevts
wrote
The
two seats
so that
multco us
it
doesn
mailto katevts
multco us
3e 3e
Please
also
questions he
Kate
include a request from
would
von
Senior
like
Ter
us
to
all of
consider
us
for
guidance
in advance
from
McShane on
the
substance
organization
of
our
presentations
and whether
or
not
there are specific
of the argument
Stegge
Assistant County
501
SE Hawthorne
503
988 3138
Suite
Attorney
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
County
Attorney
OR 97214
fax
katevts
mailto katevts co multn omah or us multco us mailto katevts co multnomah or us 3emultco us
https
multco us k 06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ 3D 3D 0A r fGEkxHA6QAJYf8d
2BuHZLxY
3D 0A m YtpaLx4tTPmfxF3vUnXnfpzPaWrqX9bHC
XTfx3RYEco 3D 0A s d826d34a649ea22e5
https
multco us
k 06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ 3D 3D 0A r fGEkxHA6QAJYf8dfAugINyMqRW5oFdgW9rJS
2BuHZLxY
3D 0A m YtpaLx4tTPmf
On Fri
Apr 18
2014 at 10 56 AM
Potter Sheila H
wrote
We need two seats
mailto sheila
potter
doj s
3e
tate
or us
Sheila
On Apr 18
2014
at 10 50 AM
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
com
mailto TRJohn
mailto TRJohn
son perkinscoie com 3Cmailto TRJohnson perkinscoie com 3e 3e 3e
wrote
All
Thanks

We
Rummell plaintiffs
need 8 seats
Let me know
Tom
Ms Pew
All counsel
in the
respectfully
Rummell and Geiger cases met
make
the following
week
this
joint
to
discuss
logistics
Wednesday
We
requests
1
We are aware that seating in the courtroom may be an issue
We request that
courtroom
for our respective
clients and other
key participants in these cases
This request could be
Obviously
we
accommodated by perhaps placing people in the jury box or in the first row of the gallery
appreciate any effort the court can make to accommodate our clients and key guests
2
If practicable
we request that counsel
clients
courtroom
to get settled before members of the public
3
Thank

be admitted to the
are admitted
If that is possible
please let us know
both sent requests about videotaping the hearing or otherwise

ability to view the hearing remotely
We have not heard back from
you
Tom Johnson
Thomas R
1120 N W
Johnson
Perkins
Couch Street
Coie
LLP
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176 tel 503 727 2176
CELL
503 914 8918 tel 503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176 tel 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson perkinscoie com mailto trjohnson perkinscoie
com
com
mailto trjohns
on
perkinscoie
son
perkinscoie
com
com
3e
3e
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
3Cmailto
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
3Cmailto
trjohn
3e
From
Potter Sheila H
mailto sheila potter doj state or us mailto sheila potter doj state or us
mailto sheila potter doj state o
r us 3e
Sent
Thursday
April 17
2014 8 39 PM
To
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkin s Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Mary Williams
mailto mary h willi
ams msn com 3e
Jennifer Middleton
m
mailto JMiddlet on justicelawyers com 3Cmailto JMiddleton justicelawy
mailto JMiddleton justicelawyers com 3Cmailto JMiddleton justicelawyers com 3e 3e
ers com
Subject
All
when we ask the court about reserv ing seats for clients
I wonder whether
courtroom
will be open
settled before the public rushes in
What do you think
Sheila
Sheila H
Potter
Suite 410
Portland
OR 97201
Mon
Wed
503 947 4700 tel 503 947 4700
971 673 1880 tel 971 673 1880
Tu
Th
F
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
This e mail may contai n information that is privileged

confidential
reply e mail
from your system

To ensure compliance with Tr easury Department and IRS regulations
we inform you that
including any
and cannot be use
d by the taxpayer
attachments
for the purpose of
i
ii
promoting
Code or
herein
or any attachments
NOTICE
This communication
information
it in error
please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
Thank you
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Johnson
Sheila
Thomas
Perkins Coie
Jr

JMiddleton
4 18 2014 2 38 44
Subject
RE
think
it
ne
is
VON TER STEGGE
mary h
Isaak
msn com
williams
Misha
Jennifer
Perkins
Coie
Middleton
com
justicelawyers
Sent
Katharine
Mary Williams
PM
and agree to have
submi ed
it
it
to the Court
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Sheila
Friday
April
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Johnson
Anna
mailto sheila
Thomas R
Jr
Re
Katharine
msn com
williams
in
VON TER STEGGE
Jennifer
Middleton
Isaak
Misha
JMiddleton
Perkins
Coie
justicelawyers
Lake
Perriguey
Joyce
com
tossing out for your various red pens
First draft
Portland
Coie
Perkins
Subject
doj state or us
potter
2014 12 14 PM
18
please have
at
Getting
it
on the road momentarily but
will
be
in
a bit
Ms Pew
m writing
on behalf of counsel for
plans for oral argument
and
us to cover in argument
like
we
to the Court
helpful
We
can
whether there are any areas
or questions that the Judge
a lot of lawyers and the briefing
was
and
lengthy
certainly
We
the parties in the Geiger and Rummell cases
all
are wondering
we
would
would
like
like
that
Judge
met
this
week
to discuss
McShane would
particularly
us to answer in the course of argument
We
have
to focus argument on those areas that will be most
prepare argument without the Court s direction
but
we
also wanted to ask
whether the Judge might have some thoughts on how argument would be most useful for him
On Apr
18 2014
LEaston
We
at
AM
11 28
dorsayindianlaw
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
await the opportunity to edit your email
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Potter Sheila
To
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Mary
JMiddleton
Thomas
Re
think
terrible
Sheila
Deputy
it
Jr
doj state or us
AM
Perkins Coie
Isaak
mary h williams
msn com
justicelawyers
com
Misha
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
williams
justicelawyers
msn com

Jennifer Middleton
com
worth asking
idea to send
2014 11 26
VON TER STEGGE
Williams
Subject
April 18
Friday
what
it
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
if
I draft
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
On Apr 18
2014
I
at
11 19
at
mailto TRJohnson
Justice
AM
agree with Sheila
ll
Thomas
Johnson
com
perkinscoie
3e
defer to others
Perkins Coie
Jr
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
wrote
but because
m a bit
reticent
for us to ask this
all
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
LLP
Perkins Coie
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
97209 4128
CELL 503 914 8918

FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
com
perkinscoie
mailto trjohnson
com
perkinscoie
Original Message
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
April 18
Friday
Katharine
Mary
Subject
We
should
Perkins Coie
Jr
justicelawyers
Re
AM
2014 11 06
mary h williams
Williams
JMiddleton
doj state or us
VON TER STEGGE
Cc Johnson Thomas
Anna
com
Isaak
msn com
Misha
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton
williams
msn com
Lake Perriguey
Joyce
Jennifer Middleton
com
justicelawyers
make
that
request
e mail so that
it
doesn
get
mixed
in
with the logistics
business
On Apr 18
2014
mailto katevts
at
11 04
AM
multco us
The County would
also like
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE

multco us
mailto katevts
two
3e
3e
katevts
multco us
all
McShane on
argument
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE
County Attorney
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
Suite 500
multco us
seats
Senior Assistant
mailto katevts
wrote
Multnomah
Portland
503 988 3377 fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
in
advance
of our
of the
katevts
https
co multnomah or us
mailto katevts
com v1
multco us
u http
url
06
2FwqqQY9VYFo4IV
3D 0A
2F1
2BuHZLxY
3D
v1
url
multco us k
http
2F1
06
3D
2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
3D
https
Apr 18 2014
Fri
potter
sheila
AM
10 56
doj state or us
We
at
Potter
3e
and
this
works for
3e
com
3D
0A
3e
doj state or us
need two seats
Sheila
3D
0A
On
3D
3D
2BuHZLxY
3emultco us
hphQ
0A
co multnomah or us
mailto katevts
multco us k
doj state or us
doj state or us
wrote
me
Sheila
On Apr 18
TRJohnson
2014
at
10 50
AM
com
perkinscoie
Johnson
Thomas
mailto TRJohnson
Perkins Coie
Jr
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
3e
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
3Cmailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
3Cmailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
3e
3e
perkinscoie
3e
com
wrote
All
This
this
what
is
propose
email works
like
Please send
to get
it
me
We
your numbers
Rummell
need 8
plaintiffs
seats
Let
me know
also
if
out today
Thanks
Tom
Ms Pew
Wednesday
We
We
respectfully
in
clients
If
settled
practicable
we
joint
clients
The Rummell and
Geiger plaintiffs
ability
issue
participants
first
row
in
We
request that
these cases
This
request could
we
be accommodated
and key guests
clients
week
requests
may be an
and other key
court
the following
make
and other key

If
that
is
possible
please
We
be
participants
let
admitted
us
know what
time
we
have not heard back
rom
should arrive
facilitating
one
this
request
Thank you
Tom
Johnson
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
LLP
Perkins Coie
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
FAX
97209 4128
503 914 8918

503 346 2176
E MAIL
tel
tel
tel
trjohnson
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
503 346 2176
com
perkinscoie
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
3e
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
3Cmailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
3Cmailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
From
Potter
Sheila
Thursday
Sent
To
Anna
2014 8 39
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
msn com
Misha
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
williams
msn com
williams
msn com
msn com
mailto mary h
williams
msn com
msn com
com
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
msn com
williams
justicelawyers
Joyce
3e
3e
3e
Jennifer Middleton
com
mailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
mailto JMiddleton
mailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
3Cmailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
mailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
3Cmailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
Subject
Lake Perriguey
msn com
williams
mailto mary h
justicelawyers
3e
mailto mary h
JMiddleton
com
PM
mary h williams
Williams
doj state or us
3e
perkinscoie
3e
doj state or us
April 17
Thomas
Johnson
Mary
mailto trjohnson
justicelawyers
com
3e
3e
3e
All
I
will
wonder whether
be open
when we
What do you
public rushes in
willing
we
to let us in to set
up and
think
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Counsel
Trial
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
503 947 4700
tel
503 947 4700
Mon Wed
971 673 1880
tel
971 673 1880
Tu
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
Th F
NOTICE
is
privileged
confidential
or otherwise
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
me
inform you that
taxpayer
Code
or
appears
To
ensure compliance
the contents conf
that
you have received
this
idential
for the purpose of
is
any attachments
ii
it
including
or

avoiding
promoting marketing
penalties that
or recommending
LLP
may be imposed on
contain
ed
to be used
the taxpay
and IRS regulations
in this
we
communication

or matter addressed
Revenue
herein
or
any attachments
NOTICE
error
please
copying
This communication
advise
may
contain privileged
information
or disclosing
the contents
Thank you
and
If
you have received
it
in
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
Misha
H
Johnson
JMiddleton
4 18 2014 2 39 55
Subject
Re
Perkins
Jr
Coie
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
mary h
williams
msn com
Isaak
Jennifer
Middleton
PM
Red pen
www
On Apr
Mary Williams
com
justicelawyers
Sent
http
Thomas
Joyce Anna
Perkins Coie
law works com
18 2014
PM
12 14
Potter
Sheila
sheila
First draft
Portland
at
in
potter
doj state or us
please have
at
Getting
it
wrote
will
be
in
a bit
Ms Pew
m writing
and
like
we
We
to the Court
can
are wondering

helpful
all
was
and
lengthy
we
would
would
like
like
that
We
this
week
to discuss
McShane would
Judge
particularly
We
have
prepare argument without the Court s directio n
certainly
met
but
we
also wanted to ask
On Apr
18 2014
LEaston
We
at
AM
11 28
dorsayindianlaw
Lea Ann Easton
com
await the opportunity to edit
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
your email
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Potter Sheila
To
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Mary
Re
Subject
Thomas
think
it
2014 11 26
Jr
mary h williams
justicelawyers
doj state or us
AM
Perkins Coie
VON TER STEGGE
Williams
JMiddleton
April 18
Friday
com
Isaak
Misha
msn com
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
williams
justicelawyers
msn com

Jennifer Middleton
com
worth asking
what
if
I draft
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
idea to send
terrible
Sheila
Deputy
it
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr
18 2014
11 19
at
mailto TRJohnson
Justice
AM
agree with Sheila
ll
Thomas
Johnson
com
perkinscoie
defer to others
3e
Perkins Coie
Jr
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
wrote
but because
of the nature of this argument
ma
bit reticent
for us to ask this at
all
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
LLP
Perkins Coie
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
97209 4128
503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
com
perkinscoie
mailto trjohnson
com
perkinscoie
Original Message
From
Sent
To
Potter Sheila
April 18
Friday
Katharine
Mary
JMiddleton
Re
Subject
We
should
doj state or us
AM
2014 11 06
VON TER STEGGE
Cc Johnson Thomas
Anna
Williams
Perkins Coie
Jr
mary h williams
com
justicelawyers
Isaak
Misha
msn com
mailto JMiddleton
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
msn com
williams
Joyce
Jennifer Middleton
com
justicelawyers
make
that
request
e mail so that
it
doesn
get
m ixed
in
with the logistics
business
On Apr
18 2014
mailto katevts
at
The County would
Please
11 04
AM
multco us
also like
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE

multco us
mailto katevts
two
3e
multco us
katevts
3e
mailto katevts
seats
all
McShane on
the substan
ce organization
argument
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior
501
SE
Hawthorne
Suite 500
multco us
wrote
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
in
advance
of our
of the
503 988 3138
katevts
503 988 3377 fax
co multnomah or us
mailto katevts
https
com v1
multco us
u http
url
co multnomah or us
mailto katevts
multco us k
2BuHZLxY
3D
3D
v1
url
multco us k
http
2F1
06
3D
2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
On
Apr 18 2014
Fri
potter
sheila
at
AM
doj state or us
We
10 56
need two seats
Potter
2BuHZLxY
3D 0A
https
this
3e
works for
3e
com
3D
3D
0A
3e
doj state or us
and
Sheila
3D
0A
us
3D
hphQ
0A
3emultco
2FwqqQY9VYFo4IV
2F1
06
doj state or us
doj state or us
wrote
me
Sheila
On Apr
18 2014
TRJohnson
at
10 50
perkinscoie
AM
com
Thomas
Johnson
mailto TRJohnson
Perkins Coie
Jr
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
3e
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
3Cmailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
3Cmailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
3e
3e
com
perkinscoie
3e
wrote
All
This
what
is
email works
propose
I
I
like
Please send
to get
it
me
We
your numbers
Rummell
need 8
plaintiffs
eats
Let
me know
also
if
this
out today
Thanks
Tom
Ms Pew
week
Wednesday
We
We
respectfully
make
the following
joint
may be an
for our respective clients and other key participants

placing
make
If
people in the jury box or in the
to accommodate
practicable
settled
we
our
clients
first
row
requests
in
issue
We
these cases
sea ts be reserved in the courtroom
request that
This request co uld be accommodated
of the gallery Obviously
we
appreciate
any
effort
by perhaps
the court can
and key guests
clients
and other key

If
that
is
participants
possible
please
be ad mitted to the courtroom to get

let
us
know what
time
we
should arrive
The Rummell and
the Geiger couples
Geiger plaintiffs
ability
We
the hearing
or otherwise
have not heard back from
facilitating
one of
the Court with regard to this
request
Thank you
Tom
Johnson
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
97209 4128
503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL trjohnson
503 727 2176
tel
tel
tel
503 914 8918
503 346 2176
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
3e
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
3Cmailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
3Cmailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
From
Potter Sheila
Thursday
Sent
To
Thomas
Johnson
Anna
Mary
doj state or us
April 17
2014 8 39
Isaak
Misha
msn com
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
Lea Ann Easton
williams
msn com
mailto mary h
williams
msn com
msn com
mailto mary h
williams
msn com
msn com
justicelawyers
com
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
msn com
williams
justicelawyers
Joyce
3e
3e
3e
Jennifer Middleton
com
mailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
mailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
3Cmailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
mailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
3Cmailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
mailto JMiddleton
Lake Perriguey
msn com
williams
mailto mary h
JMiddleton
doj state or us
3e
Perkins Coie
Jr
3e
PM
mary h williams
Williams
doj state or us
3e
com
perkinscoie
justicelawyers
com
3e
3e
3e
Subject
All
I
wonder whether
will
be open
when we
public rushes in
What do you
think
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
1515
SW
Portland
Fifth
OR
Avenue
Justice
Suite 410
97201
503 947 4700
tel
503 947 4700
Mon Wed
971 673 1880
tel
971 673 1880
Tu Th F
willing
we
to let us in to set
up and
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
me
Code
is
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
To
ensure compliance
you have received
that
idential

avoiding
promoting marketing
ii
it
any attachments
for the purpose of
or
or
confidential
this
inform you that
taxpayer
privileged
including
is
penalties that
or recommending
LLP
may be imposed on
contain
ed
to be used
the taxpay
and IRS
in this
regulations
we
communication

or matter addressed
Revenue
herein
or
any attachments
NOTICE
error
This communication
please
copying
advise
may
contain privileged
information
or disclosing
the contents
Thank you
and
If
you have received
it
in
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Potter
Sheila
Coie
Joyce Anna
JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton
4 18 2014 2 45 46
Subject
Re
Works
On
for
me
Jr
Perkins Coie
msn com
Isaak
Jennifer
Misha Perkins
Middleton
PM
2014
Lake Perriguey
law works com
lake
wrote
www
On Apr
williams
Thanks
Friday April 18
Red pen
http
mary h
com
justicelawyers
Sent
Thomas
Johnson
Mary Williams
law works com
18 2014
First draft
Portland
in
at
12 14
PM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
please have
at
it
Getting
wrote
will
be
in
a bit
Ms Pew
m writing
and
like
we
We
to the Court
can

helpful
all
are wondering
was
and
lengthy
we
would
would
like
like
that
We
this
week
to discuss
particularly
We
but
we
also wanted to ask
On Apr
18 2014
LEaston
We
at
11 28
AM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
your email
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Potter Sheila
Friday
To
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Mary
April 18
Thomas
Williams
JMiddleton
2014 11 26
Jr
doj state or us
AM
Perkins Coie
VON TER STEGGE
Isaak
mary h williams
msn com
justicelawyers
com
Misha
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
have
certainly
met
McShane would
Judge
Lea Ann Easton
williams
justicelawyers
msn com
com

Jennifer Middleton
Re
Subject
think
worth asking
it
idea to send
terrible
Sheila
Deputy
what
I draft
it
to the group
18 2014
agree with Sheila
AM
Johnson
perkinscoie
ll
com
defer to others
3e
Thomas
Jr
Perkins Coie
Thomas
but because
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
97209 4128
503 914 8918

503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
Original Message
Potter Sheila
mailto sheila p
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
TRJohnson
Tenth Floor
From
it
d be a
perkinscoie
com
wrote
all
FAX
me why
Justice
11 19
at
mailto TRJohnson
CELL
tell
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr
1120
and you can
Potter
if
it
perkinscoie
com
ma
bit reticent
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Johnson
CC
Katharine

Williams
mary h
Thomas
Sent
4 18 2014 2 47 02
Subject
RE
No ce
This
intended
a specic
should delete
any disclosure
this
Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Mary
com
PM
including
may contain
any a achments
communica on and
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
copying
Jennifer
communica on
for
msn com
williams
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
hereby no ed that
on based on
of any ac
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
we
communica on
avoiding
including
any a achments
inform you that any

is
on
or
ma er addressed
S federal tax advi
Code
party any transac
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
or recom
ed
for
email
logiscs
Thank you
for
okay with us
is
herein
sending this email
And we need 10
seats for
the hearing
Have great weekend
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Johnson
Friday
Thomas R
April
18
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Katharine
Jr
Perkins
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
Misha
Perkins
Middleton
Coie
JMiddleton
Lake
Perriguey
justicelawyers
logistics
Lea Ann
How many
seats
do you
all
need
Was
Thanks
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
CELL
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
2014 11 35 AM
Potter Sheila H
Jennifer
Subject
Coie
com
the logistics email ok with you
Joyce Anna
com
the purpose of
mending to another
Tom
The
in this
Mary Williams
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
April
mailto
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 11 28 AM
18

Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
Subject
We
Sheila
to edit
Lake
Perriguey
justicelawyers
Joyce Anna
Mary Williams
com
logistics
your email
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Friday
April
mailto sheila
Thomas R
Johnson
Jr
Perkins
Coie

Jennifer
Cc
Katharine
Subject
think
Re
idea to send
terrible
Sheila
Deputy
what
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Lake
Joyce Anna
Perriguey
Mary Williams
com
if
I draft
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr 18
Lea Ann Easton
Coie
Perkins
it
at
Misha
Middleton
worth asking
it
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 26 AM
18
2014
11 19
at
agree with Sheila
Justice
ll
AM
Johnson
defer to others
Thomas
but because
Perkins Coie
Jr
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
m a bit
reticent
com
wrote
for us to ask this
all
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
97209 4128
503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
com
perkinscoie
Original Message
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
April 18
Friday
Katharine
Mary
Subject
We
should
Jr
Perkins Coie
mary h williams
Williams
Re
doj state or us
AM
VON TER STEGGE
Cc Johnson Thomas
Anna
2014 11 06
Isaak
msn com
Misha
Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
On Apr 18
JMiddleton
Lake Perriguey
justicelawyers
Joyce
com
make
that
request
e mail so that
business
katevts
Lea Ann Easton
2014
multco us
at
11 04
AM
Katharine
mailto katevts
VON TER STEGGE
multco us
wrote
it
doesn
get
mixed
in
with the logistics
The County would
also like
two
seats
all
McShane on
in
advance
of our
of the
argument
Kate von Ter Stegge
County Attorney
Senior Assistant
SE
501
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
Suite 500
OR
Portland
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
co multnomah or us
mailto katevts
katevts
multco us k
Multnomah
2F1
06
multco us
3D
2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
m
s
https
com v1
url
http
3D
2BuHZLxY
3D 0A
3D
0A
On
Apr 18 2014
Fri
potter
sheila
We
at
doj state or us
need two seats
AM
10 56
and
this
Potter
Sheila
works for
wrote
doj state or us
me
Sheila
On Apr 18
TRJohnson
2014
at
10 50
com
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
AM
Johnson
Thomas
mailto TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
Jr
Perkins Coie
perkinscoie
3Cmailto TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
com
wrote
All
This
this
what
is
email works
propose
I
like
Please send
to get
it
me
your numbers
We
Rummell
plaintiffs
need 8
seats
Let
me know
out today
Thanks
Tom
Ms Pew
Wednesday
We
We
respectfully
make
the following
joint
week
requests
may be an
issue
We
request that
also
if

we
practicable
If
The Rummell and

this
clients
Geiger plaintiffs
participants
first
row
and other key
clients
If
that
is
these cases
This
We
be
participants
possible
please
let
request could
we
be accommodated
admitted
know what
us
time
we
ability
in
and key guests
settled
and other key
clients
court
in
have not heard back
rom
should arrive
facilitating
one
request
Thank you
Tom
Johnson
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
97209 4128
503 914 8918
FAX 503
E MAIL
346 2176
From
Potter
To
Anna
Mary
mailto mary h
com
com
mailto trjohnson
2014 8 39
Jr
com
doj state or us
Isaak
msn com
com
Misha
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
perkinscoie
com
doj state or us
PM
Perkins Coie
msn com
williams
justicelawyers
perkinscoie
3Cmailto trjohnson
mary h williams
mailto JMiddleton
Subject
April 17
Williams
JMiddleton
503 346 2176
perkinscoie
Thomas
Johnson
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
perkinscoie
Sheila
Thursday
Sent
tel
trjohnson
mailto trjohnson
tel
tel
com
Lake Perriguey
Joyce
msn com
msn com
justicelawyers
3Cmailto JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton
williams
Jennifer Middleton
com
justicelawyers
com
All
I
will
wonder whether
be open
when we
What do you
public rushes in
think
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Counsel
Trial
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Fifth
OR
503 947 4700
of Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
tel
503 947 4700
Mon Wed
willing
we
to let us in to set
up and
971 673 1880
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
If
e mail in error
please advise
NOTICE
me
Code
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
To
ensure compliance
the contents conf
that
you have received
this
idential
for the purpose of
is
any attachments
ii
privileged
inform you that
taxpayer
is
including
Th F
applicable law
the message
Tu
971 673 1880
tel

avoiding
promoting marketing
penalties that
or recommending
LLP
may be imposed on
contain
ed
to be used
the taxpay
and IRS regulations
in this
we
communication

or matter addressed
Revenue
herein
or
any attachments
NOTICE
error
please
copying
This communication
advise
may
contain privileged
information
or disclosing
the contents
Thank you
and
If
you have received
it
in
Thomas R
From
Johnson
To
Potter Sheila
CC
Katharine
Joyce Anna
Perkins
JMiddleton
Mary Williams
justicelawyers
Sent
4 18 2014 3 26 00
Subject
RE
Jr
Coie
H Lea Ann Easton

mary
Misha
h williams
Perkins
Coie
msn com
Lake Perriguey
Jennifer Middleton
com
PM
logistics
like your email
As an update on the logistics front

I called the court because I thought I might get some better traction
with her on the phone than sen ding an email asking for a bunch of seats
Christy Weller
the district
manager
told me she will talk to security
but that she would see if she can get us and our clients
admitted early
at 1 00 pm
before the general public
We need to send her a list
o
f names first thing
Monday
so please send me the names of the attorneys and the guests for the spots you requested
As I read
the emails
it was 2 for state
2 for county
8 for Rummell
and 10 for Geiger
Incidentally
our 8 are the
four plaintiffs
BRO s ED and board chair
and ACLU s ED and litigation director
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins
Couch Street
1120 N W
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176
E MAIL
Coie
LLP
co m
Original Message
Potter Sheila H
From
Friday
April 18
2014 12 14 PM
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Mary Williams mary h williams msn com
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton justicelawyers com
Subject
Re
First draft
but will be in Portland in a bit
red pens
please have
at it
Getting
Perkins
on the road
Coie
Lake
momentarily
Ms Pew
I
m writing
on
behalf of
counsel
for all the
parties in the
Geiger and
Rummell cases We met
this
week
to
discuss plans
for oral
argument
and
we
are
wondering
McShane would particularly like us to cover in argument

or questions that the
Judge would like us to answer in the course of argument
We have a lot of lawyers and the briefing was
lengthy
and we would like to focus argument on those areas that will be
most helpful to the Court
We can
whether
there are
any
areas
that
Judge
certainly prepare argument without

have some thoughts on how argument
the Court s direction

but we also wanted
would be most useful for him
On Apr 18
2014
at 11 28 AM
Lea Ann Easton
We
await
Lea
com
to ask whether
Ann
think
it
might
wrote
From
Potter Sheila H
Friday
April 18
2014 11 26 AM
Sent
To
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Cc
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton justicelawyers com mailto JMiddle ton justicelawyers com
Subject
Re
I
the Judge
it
s worth asking
d be a terrible idea
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
what
to send
if
draft something
up and send
it
to the group
Joyce Anna
and you can
tell
Mary
me why
it
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr 18
2014
at 11 19 AM
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie
I agree with Sheila
I ll
for us to ask this at all
defer
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins
Couch Street
1120 N W
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
Coie
to others
LLP
but because
Perkins Coie
com 3e
wrote
of the nature o
this argument
m a bit
reticent
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL 503 914 8918

FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
Original Message
Potter Sheila H
From
Friday
April 18
2014 11 06 AM
Sent
To
Cc
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Jennifer Middleton
Subject
Re
logistics
We should make that
logistics business
request
e mail
On Apr 18
2014
at 11 04 AM
katevts multco us mailto katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
wrote
The
so that it
multco us
doesn
mailto katevts
multco us 3e 3e
two seats
Please also include a request from all of us for guidance from McShane on the substance organization of
our presentations
and whether
or not there are specific questions he would like us to consider in advance
the argument
Kate
von
Senior
Ter
Stegge
Assistant County
501
SE Hawthorne
503
988 3138
Suite
Attorney
500
Multnomah
Portland
503 988 3377 fax
County
OR 97214
Attorney
of
mailto
katevts
06
katevts
2F1
co
multnomah
or
us
multco
2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ
us
3D
mailto
3D
katevts
co
multnomah
or
us
3emultco us
https
com v1
url
http
0Ar fGEkxHA6QAJYf8dfAugINyMq
RW5oFdgW9rJS
2BuHZLxY 3D 0A m YtpaLx
4tTPmfxF3vUnXnfpzPaWrqX9bHCXTfx3RYEco
https
multco us k 06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ 3D 3D 0A r fGE
61
2BuHZLxY 3D 0A m YtpaLx4tTPmfxF3vUnXnfpzPaWrqX9bHCXTfx3RYEco
3D 0A s d826d
kxHA6QAJYf8dfAugINyMqRW5oFdgW9rJS
34a649ea22e566c5b24b155a62cff80b19d6d15be4dd9a9a100e2400361
3e
multco us k
On Fri
Apr 18
2014 at 10 56 AM
Potter Sheila H
sheila potter doj state or us m ailto sheila potter
wrote
We
need
two seats
doj state
or us
doj state or us
Sheila
On Apr 18
2014
at 10 50 AM
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
com
son perkinscoie com 3Cmailto TRJohnso n perkinscoie
com 3e 3e 3e
wrote
mailto TRJohn
mailto TRJohn
All

We
Rummell plaintiffs
need 8 seats
Let me know
Thanks
Tom
Ms
Pew
All counsel in the Rummell and Geiger cases met this week to discuss
Wednesday
We respectfully
make the following joint requests
logistics
1
We are aware that seating in the courtroom may be an issue
We request that
seats be
reserved in the
courtroom
for our respective
clients and other key participants
in these cases
This request could be
Obviously
we
accommodated by perhaps placing people in the jury box or in the first row of the gallery
appreciate any effort the court c an make to accommodate our clients and key guests
If
practicable
admitted
If
we
request
that is possible
that
please
counsel
let
clients
us know
and
other
what
3
Thank
key
participants
be admitted
to the
courtroom
to get settled
before
members
of the
public
are
time we should arrive

We have not heard back
from
you
Tom Johnson
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch Street
1120 N W
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176 tel 503 727 2176
CELL
503 914 8918 tel 503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176 tel 503 346 2176
E MAIL
com
mailto trjohns
mailto trjohnson perkinscoie com 3Cmailto trjohnson perkinscoie
com
mailto
trjohnso
n perkinscoie
From
Potter Sheila
H
doj state or us mailto sheila potter
doj state or us
doj state o
r us 3e
Sent
Thursday
April 17
2014 8 39 PM
To
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Mary Williams
mailto mary h willi
ams msn com 3e
Jennifer Middleton
mailto JMiddleton justicelawyer
s com
m
ers com
Subject
logistics
All
I
wonder whether
deputy might be
when we ask
willing
to let
us
the
court
in to set
about
up and
reserving
get
settled
seats for clients
before
the
public
we
might
rushes
also
in
ask
What
when
the
courtroom
will
be open
and whether
the
courtroom
do you think
Sheila
Sheila
Potter

Suite 410
Portland
OR 97201
Mon
Wed
503 947 4700 tel 503 947 4700
971 673 1880 tel 971 673 1880
Tu
Th
F
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE

confidential
from your system

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department and
you that
IRS regulations
we inform

is not intend ed or written by Perkins Coie LLP to be used
and cannot be used
the taxpayer
for the purpose of
i
ii
promoting
to another party an
y transaction or
or any attachments
it
by
NOTICE
This communication
information
in error
please advise the sender by reply email and im mediately delete the message and any attachments
without
copying
or disclosing
the contents
Thank
you
From
Potter Sheila
To
Johnson
CC
Katharine
Thomas R
Joyce Anna
Perkins
JMiddleton
Mary Williams
justicelawyers
Sent
4 18 2014 3 41 32
Subject
RE
Any objections
maybe
Jr
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
Isaak
mary
Lea Ann Easton
Misha
h williams
Perkins
Coie
msn com
Lake Perriguey
Jennifer Middleton
com
PM
or edits from anyone
before
logistics
send
Speak
now
or forever etc
etc
Original Message
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
From
Sent
Friday
April 18
2014 3 26 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lake Perriguey
Joyce
Jennifer Middleton
Subject
I
RE
seems appropriate
Anna
here
Mary Williams
logistics
like your email
As an update on the logistics front

I called the court because I thought I might get some better traction
with her on the phone than sending an email asking for a bunch of seats
Christy Weller
the district
manager
told me she will talk to security
but that she would see if she can get us and our clients
admitted early
at 1 00 pm
before the general public
We need to se nd her a list of names first thing
Monday
so please send me the names of the attorneys and the guests for the spots you requested
As I read
the emails
it was 2 for state
2 for county
8 for Rummell
and 10 for Geiger
Incidentally
our 8 are the
four
plaintiffs
BRO s ED
and board
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins
Couch Street
1120 N W
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
Original Message
Coie
com
chair
LLP
and ACLU s ED
and litigation
director
From
Sent
Sheila
Friday April
18
Potter
Ann
To
Lea
Cc
Johnson
Williams
Subject
mailto
sheila potter
2014 12 14
doj
state
or
us
PM
Easton
Thomas
Jr
Perkins Coie
VON TER STEGGE Isaak Misha Perkin s Coie

Lake Perriguey
Jennifer Middleton
Katharine

Re
Mary
logistics
First draft
Ms
Joyce Anna
red pens
please have
at it
Getti
ng on the
road momentarily
Pew
m writing on behalf
of counsel
for all
the parties
in the Geiger and Rummell cases
We
met this week
to

and we are wondering whether there are any
areas that Judge McShane would
or questions that the Judge would like us to answer in the course
of argument
and we would like to focus argument on
We can certainly prepare argument without the Court s
direction
but we also wanted to ask whether the Judge might have some thoughts on how argument would be
most useful for him
On Apr 18
2014
at 11 28 AM
Lea Ann Easton
We
Lea
await
com
wrote
Ann
From
Potter Sheila H
Friday
April 18
2014 11 26 AM
Sent
To
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Cc
Isaak
Misha
doj state
Perkins
or us
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake
Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Mary
Jennifer Middleton
Subject
Re
what if
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
draft something
up and send
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
On Apr 18 2014
I
at
agree with Sheila
11 19
I ll
AM
Thomas
Johnson
defer to others
but because
Jr
Perkins Coie
of the nature
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
of this argument
com
mailto
m a bit
TRJohnson
reticent
perkinscoie
com
3e
wrote
all
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins
Couch Street
1120 N W
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
503 914 8918
Coie
FAX
503 346 2176
E MAIL
LLP
com
Original Message
Potter Sheila H
From
Friday
April 18
2014 11 06 AM
Sent
To
Cc
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton justicelawyers com mailto JMiddleton justicelawyers
Subject
Re
We should make that
logistics business
On Apr 18
katevts
wrote
The
2014
multco us
request
at 11 04 AM
mailto katevts
Katharine
VON TER
multco us
e mail
com
so that it
doesn
STEGGE
mailto katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
multco us 3e 3e
two seats
Please also include a request from all of us for guidance from McShane on the substance organization of
our presentations and whether or not there are specific questions he would like us to consider in advance
the argument
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
of
Senior
Assistant
County Attorney
501 SE Hawthorne
503
988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
Multnomah
Portland
503 988 3377
mailto katevts
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
co multnomah or us multco us mailto katevts
co multnomah or us 3emultco
us
https

multco us k 06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ 3D 3D 0A r fGEkxHA6Q
AJYf8d
2BuHZLxY
3D 0A m YtpaLx4tTPmfxF3vUnXnfpzPaWrqX9bHCXTfx3RYEco
3D 0A s d826d34a649ea22e5
https
multco us
k 06 2F1 2FwqqQY9VYFo4IVhphQ 3D
3D 0A r fGEkxHA6QAJYf8dfAugINyMqRW5oFdgW9rJS
2BuHZLxY
3D 0A m YtpaLx4tTPmf
3e
On Fri
Apr 18
2014 at 10 56 AM
Potter Sheila H
wrote
We
need
two seats
doj state or us
mailto sheila
potter
doj state
or us
Sheila
On Apr 18
2014
at 10 50 AM
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
com
son perkinscoie com 3C mailto TRJohnson perkinscoie
com 3e 3e 3e
wrote
mailto TRJohn
mailto TRJohn
All
Thanks
Tom
Ms
Pew

We
Rummell plaintiffs
need 8 seats
Let me know
All counsel
joint
in the
Rummell and Geiger cases met
this
week
to
discuss
logistics
for the
oral
argument next
Wednesday
We
respectfully
make
the
following
requests
1 We are aware that seating in the courtroom may be an issue We request th at

seats be reserved in the courtroom for our
clients and other key participants in these cases
This request could be accommodated by perhaps
respective
placing people in the jury box or in the first row of the gallery
Obviously
we appreciate any eff
ort the
court
can
make
to accommodate
our clients
2
If practicable
we request
courtroom
to get settled before
that counsel
clients
members of the public
3
Thank
and key guests

be admitted to the
are admitted
If that is poss
ible
please let

We have not heard
back
us know
from
you
Tom Johnson
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch Street
1120 N W
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176 tel 503 727 2176
CELL
503 914 8918 tel 503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176 tel 503 346 2176
E MAIL
com
mailto trjohnson perkinscoie com 3Cmailto trjohnson perkinscoi
e com
n perkinscoie
From
Potter Sheila
r us 3e
H
doj state or us mailto sheila potter
doj state or us
mailto trjohns
mailto trjohnso
doj state o
Thursday April 17 2014 8 39 PM

To
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Mary Williams
mailto mary h willi
ams msn com 3e
Jennifer Middleton
Sent

mailto JMiddleto
n justicelawyers com
m
ers com
Subject
Geiger Rummell court room logistics
All
when we ask the court about reserving seats for clients
I wonder whether
courtroom
will be open
settled before the publ ic rushes in
What do you think
Sheila
Sheila H
Potter
Suite 410
Portland
OR 97201
Mon
503 947 4700 tel 503 947 4700
971 673 1880 tel 971 673 1880
Tu
CONFIDENTIALITY
Wed
Th
F
NOTICE

confidential
If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise
that you have
from your system

we inform
you that
the taxpayer
for the purpose of
i
ii
promoting
to a nother party any transaction or
or any attachments
NOTICE
email
Thank
This communication
and immediately
you
may contain
delete
privileged
the message
information
and any attachments
If
you have received
without
copying
it
in error
please
advise
or disclosing
the
sender
by rep
the contents
ly
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
4 18 2014 3 43 04
Subject
FW
thought
Steven
Sylwester
Sent
Friday
April 18
Joyce
Subject
Anna
Mary
Williams
Von
Ter
Google
Steven
a left
hand
discrimination
am opposed
the
hand
to
same
of
without
now
that
than
advocating
there
you four
2014
consolidated
First read
http
http
of
to
multco us
al v
Steven
Kitzhaber
et
Sylwester
al
it
to
We
are going
if
we
do it
heading
to
compromise that
Whenever
the
parents
about
discriminate
that
some
society
of
the
U S
be the
in the
that
to
am finished
chance
every
women
know
negative
In
against
the
will
and
say that
I
are
be
the
someone
law
case
still
and
and
order
and
who
is
equal
blogspot
every
those
parents
many
no one
last one
who
with
is
mean
of
those
are living
and
the
oral arguments
next
10
in
Wednesday
in the
It
solution
read
of
the
com 2013
layer of
for everyone
Citizens
in the
html
Law
links
will
too
11 11 html
argument
most persuasive
and
possible
com
be sure to
with it
the
the
are essentially
Just Do
Identity
blogspot
and
that
that
follows
Legal
another
are
reasonable
their numbers
mean
now
and
are single
They
is
guarantee
extent
absolutely
it
then
greatest
during
Do
to
It
just a few
especially
for what
law
legal discriminations
despite
and
today
11 legal co
law
the
today
all
here
most compelling
read
way
to
is
not
no one
al lawsuit
adds
is
s obligation
s courtroom
commentary
citizens
in some
their children
now
com 2009
in the
the
smaller group
their children
evil
everyone
might at
McShane
et
happens
born
unfairly
you might think
should be reconsidered
world
Constitution
and
Consider the
benefits
of
background
citizens
as I
one
the
in America
Kitzhaber
that
longstanding
everyone
your fellow
is
what
be treated
was
and
say that
needs
up for them
to
prejudice
unfair discriminations
on the
and
laws
but
of
worsen
ever
than
when
worsened
is
end
feels like
will
against
parents
Michael
Please
have
wrong
it
solved
discriminations
or for the
document
might well
you as soon
subject
single
Simply for this purpose

receiving
different
never
should benefit
amendment
on another
argument
what
discrimination
opinion
necessary
legal identity of
am working
all
would
a sylwester blogspot
proposed
of
in Oregon
with no political
al v
legal identity of
History
and
are alone
stand
in Judge
amendment
is
am
on the
are actually
as that
should care
this for the
proposed
the
who
lived
should be in light
are single
Geiger et
steven
know
are 10 million women in America
They
Your time to
April 23
send
katevts
Geiger et
for reasons
say that
such
Americans
million women who
that
Re
a smaller group
for those
for their needs
As women
yet landed
com
Sheila
bit
against
a strong
our laws
child
disenfranchised
My
and
reconsideration
this
one
but
laws
To
basis
opinion
of
the
Understand
http
make
have
the
form a strong
reconsideration
of
every
legalized
no right minded person
and
to
have
discriminations
exception
in America
poverty
know
onto
people
those
has a right to
outcome
people
single
that
unfair
life
so I
sex marriage
Society
and
you want
sex marriage is
impacts of
is
if
negative
more
Potter
unfair discrimination
group
the
if
of
against
to
com
Part 1 of
60 years ago
same
in place
Many
Sylwester
my whole
from one
evil
sylwester gmail
2 has not
2 18 PM
Sylwester
problem
impacts of
at
steven
Part 2 of
Kitzhaber et al
Stegge
without
moved
2014
reading
Geiger et al v
Potter
Katharine
that
mailto
Re
Part 1 of 2
Joyce
Sheila
this interesting
mary h williams msn
From Steven
Anna
PM
From Steven A Sylwester
you might find
From
To
Sheila
to
all
argument
identify it
as
of
of
the
above
all
Part 2 of
and
will
2
on
it
to
do this right
ongoing
American
fight
and
over
citizen
America
abortion
without
will
Mine
exception
suffer for endless decades

is
middle ground
everyone
is
a winner in
its
outcome
contentions
alternative
The
same
There
to
sex marriage fight
is
must be moved
a third alternative
light
Make
it
better
if
a better
off
of
its
present
alternative
you can
Sincerely
Steven
2390
Sylwester
Jefferson St
Eugene
OR
97405
541
steven
sylwester gmail
P S
You
343
2410
Phone
9695
are welcome
to
com mailto
call
steven
sylwester gmail
me anytime day or night
com
Time
is
short
and
either or
my proposal
brings that
From
Potter
To
Tom
Sent
4 18 2014 3 46 31
Subject
FW
Sharing a little
forward
to
it
Sheila
Johnson
Perkins Coie
Misha Isaak
light
reading
as evidently
Perkins Coie
PM
Re
Part 1 of 2
Geiger et al v
for your Friday afternoon
that
s where
the
Kitzhaber et al
Part 2 hasn
really good
argument
will
arrived
yet
Looking
be
Sheila
From
Steven
Sylwester
Sent
Friday
April 18
To
Joyce
Subject
Anna
Mary
Williams
Von
Ter
Google
Steven
a left
hand
discrimination
am opposed
the
hand
to
same
same
impacts of
of
without
and
now
that
than
advocating
there
you four
2014
consolidated
First read
http
http
of
proposed
am working
to
subject
to
multco us
al v
Steven
Kitzhaber
et
Sylwester
al
it
Whenever
the
parents
laws
discriminate
about
that
some
society
of
of
the
U S
and
citizens
to
be the
as I
Please
that
here
law
law
adds
it
know
negative
In
against
the
will
and
say that
I
are
be
the
someone
law
case
still
and
and
order
and
who
is
equal
possible
parents
many
no one
with
is
every
those
last one
who
mean
of
those
are living
and
the
oral arguments
next
10
in
Wednesday
in the
It
solution
of
for everyone
Citizens
in the
html
Law
com
read
com 2013
layer of
and
the
the
are essentially
Just Do
Identity
blogspot
with it
that
that
follows
be sure to
and
are
reasonable
their numbers
mean
now
and
are single
They
is
guarantee
extent
absolutely
it
then
greatest
during
Do
to
It
just a few
despite
and
blogspot
another
especially
Legal
most compelling
am finished
read
women
today
11 legal co
commentary
the
today
all
for what
com 2009
in the
way
to
is
not
no one
al lawsuit
background
in the
is
s obligation
s courtroom
Constitution
citizens
in some
their children
now
McShane
et
the
smaller group
their children
evil
everyone
might at
in America
Kitzhaber
happens
born
unfairly
you might think
world
your fellow
is
that
longstanding
everyone
the
needs
up for them
Michael
what
be treated
was
and
say that
against
parents
to
prejudice
on the
and
worsen
but
of
will
ever
than
when
worsened
is
end
feels like
solved
in Oregon
single

receiving
different
never
should benefit
document
might well
heading
am
what
discriminations
or for the
amendment
you as soon
of
discrimination
opinion
necessary
on another
argument
all
would
amendment
is
with no political
al v
legal identity of
it
and
are alone
stand
in Judge
legal identity of
History
the
on the
are actually
as that
should care
this for the
proposed
send
who
lived
should be in light
are single
Geiger et
steven
know
They
Your time to
April 23
that
katevts
Geiger et
for reasons
say that
such
Americans
million women who
Re
a smaller group
for those
for their needs
As women
My
Sheila
bit
against
a strong
our laws
child
disenfranchised
http
and
reconsideration
this
one
but
laws
To
basis
opinion
of
the
Understand
poverty
make
have
the
form a strong
of
every
discriminations
exception
in America
to
have
legalized
reconsideration
more
know
onto
people
those
has a right to
outcome
people
single
that
unfair
life
so I
sex marriage
Society
and
you want
sex marriage is
negative
is
if
against
to
Potter
group
the
if
of
in place
Many
com
Part 1 of
60 years ago
my whole
from one
evil
Sylwester
Sylwester
problem
impacts of
at
com
Stegge
without
moved
sylwester gmail
Potter
Katharine
that
steven
2 18 PM
Joyce
Sheila
2014
mary h williams msn
From Steven
Anna
mailto
the
links
argument
most persuasive
I
will
too
11 11 html
to
all
argument
identify it
as
of
of
the
above
all
Part 2 of
and
will
2
on
We
are going
if
we
do it
to
have
wrong
compromise that
its
outcome
contentions
alternative
benefits
The
same
There
to
one
chance
Consider the
every
to
do this right
ongoing
American
fight
citizen
sex marriage fight
is
Make
it
better
if
America
abortion
without
must be moved
a third alternative
light
and
over
a better
will
Mine

is
exception
off
of
its
2390
alternative
you can
Sylwester
Jefferson St
Eugene
OR
97405
541
steven
sylwester gmail
P S
You
343
2410
Phone
9695
are welcome
to
com mailto
call
steven
sylwester gmail
com
Time
is
middle ground
present
Sincerely
Steven
everyone
short
and
is
a winner in
either or
my proposal
brings that
From
Potter
To
Charlene
CC
Joyce Anna
Sheila
Pew
Johnson
ord uscourts gov
Mary Williams
Perkins Coie
JMiddleton
mary h
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
com
msn com
williams
Perkins Coie
Kevin Diaz
Lea Ann Easton
Jennifer
kdiaz
Lake PerrigueyTom
Middleton
aclu or org
PM
Sent
4 18 2014 4 27 31
Subject
Case 6 13 cv 2256
MC Geiger
Rummell v Kitzhaber
Ms Pew
m writing
on behalf of counsel
argument and
discuss plans for oral
would
for all the parties in theGeiger
we
particularly like us to address in
course of argument
We
have a
argument on those areas
we
but
we
make
might
collectively
are wondering whether
argument or questions
lot of lawyers
that will
be most
also all
oral
and Rummell cases
and the brieng
there are
helpful to the Court
any areas
lengthy
We
and
we
to focus on those subjects or questions
if
he would
and
that
this
week
to
Judge McShane
in the
would like to focus
can certainly prepare argument without
wanted to ask whether the Judge might have
argument as productive
met
wouldlike us to answer
that the Judge
was
We
useful for
him as
we
some thoughts
on
how
can We would be pleased
like us to
Thank you
Po er
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
4 18 2014 4 43 12
Subject
Re Case 6 13
Thank you
Sheila
Lake James
Sheila
H
PM
MC
cv 2256
Geiger
Rummell v Kitzhaber
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
18 2014
Civil
at
Justice
4 27
PM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Ms Pew
m writing
on behalf of counsel
argument and
discuss plans for oral
would
for all the parties in theGeiger
we
particularly like us to address in
course of argument
We
have a
argument on those areas
we
but
we
make
might
collectively
are wondering whether
argument or questions
lot of lawyers
that will
be most
also all
oral
and Rummell cases
and the brieng
there are
helpful to the Court
any areas
lengthy
We
and
we
to focus on those subjects or questions
if
he would
and
that
this
week
to
Judge McShane
in the
would like to focus
can certainly prepare argument without
wanted to ask whether the Judge might have
argument as productive
met
wouldlike us to answer
that the Judge
was
We
useful for
him as
we
some thoughts
on
how
can We would be pleased
like us to
Thank you
Po er
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
4 18 2014 5 05 59
Subject
RE
wonder
Misha Isaak
Perkins
Jr
Coie
Re
Part 1 of 2
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Ha
rational basis
Coie LLP
Perkins
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Potter
Sent
To
Thomas
PM
the judge would find this to be a
if
Coie
Johnson
Thomas R
FW
Sharing a
mailto sheila
Jr
Coie
Perkins
le
li
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 47 PM
18
April
Johnson
Subject
Sheila
Friday
light reading
evidently that s where the
Isaak
Part
Misha
of
Geiger et

really
good argument
Coie
Perkins
Re
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Looking forward to
Part 2 hasn t arrived yet
it
as
be
will
Sheila
From
Steven Sylwester
Sent
To
Friday
Joyce Anna
Subject
mailto
steven
mary h
msn com
williams
Anna
Mary
Williams
gmail
sylwester
com
2014 2 18 PM
18
April
Part
Potter
of
Sheila
Re
multco
katevts
Geiger et
al
us
Kitzhaber
et
Steven Sylwester
al
Joyce
Sheila Potter
Katharine
Google
Von
so
feels like
it
am
Sylwester
have
if
you want to know who
Whenever
smaller group
is
that
but for reasons different
when
never solved
happens
unfair
will
To
my
was born
whole
life
without a
know
left
hand
every bit of
moved from one
are
if
same sex marriage
is
legalized in Oregon
are
the
know
that
the problem
of
group of people onto a smaller

worsened on the
actually
unfair
discriminations
will
still
be
and th e negative impacts of those
worsen
has a right to
exception
purpose
than what you might think
discriminations
against single people and against single parents and their children
place
this
the negative impacts of the unfair discriminations
In the case at hand
discriminations
Society
Simply for
to be treated unfairly
discrimination
group
am
on the receiving end of prejudice and discrimination
lived
opposed to same sex marriage
unfair
in
Steven
60 years ago
what
Ter Stegge
make
laws
and
say that discrimination
all
is
laws discriminate
evil
is
in
some way
to say that law and order
against
is
evil
someone
and no
and
right
that
is
without
minded person would
ever say that
Many
basis
in
now have
America
for those discriminations
society s obligation
few
and
that
Understand
child
a strong opinion
is
that
It
is
They are
essentially
no one
legal
discriminations are unfair
reasonable to form a strong opinion

of our laws should
be
and
such as
that
that
of everyone
in light
the
but
not just a
should benefit everyone to the great est extent possible
there are 10 million women in America
They are alone against the world
of their children
longstanding
to then guarantee that the reconsideration
the outcome of the reconsideration
this
some
today
who
are single parents
absolutely no one
disenfranchised Americans
is
advocating
with no political
many
with more than one
for their needs or for the needs
might
at
all
despite their numbers
As women
who
are single parents in America
now
is
now
here and
and
today
mean
steven
a sylwester
proposed amendment to the
http
legal identity
of citizens
History of proposed
http
legal identity
law blogspot
am
We
in
of citizens
will identify
Kitzhaber
Do
lawsuit
et al
McShane
Do
Just
it
courtroom
It
co equal solution for everyone html steven
Legal Identity of Citizens in the
com
the law blogspot
in
com 2013 11 11
the law blogspot
of citizens
legal identity
be sure to read the
fight
or
either
layer
Law
in
com
the law blogspot
too
links
html legal identity
of argument to
better
if
is
a winner
There
contentions
it
is
is
Please
and America
Mine
over abortion
in
I will
all
on the subject heading
to do this right
everyone
Make
to light
adds another
that
and most persuasive argument of
without exception
present
Constitution
Part 2 of 2
as
it
Consider the ongoing
alternative
Your time to stand up for them
Judge Michael
of citizens
in
the
com
are going to have one chance
citizen
its
working on another document
and
legal
amendment and commentary
well be the most compelling

it
in
for what follows
com 2009 11
blogspot
2014
those 10 million women
every last one of
are living in poverty
April 23
Geiger et al v
mean
com
My
background
read this for the necessary
http
and
who
those
especially
next Wednesday
during the oral arguments in the consolidated
First
women
you four should care about your fellow
will
middle ground
its
send
read
suffer
a third alternative
it
to
you
and
argument might
that
am
as soon as I
with
finished
it
for endless
compromise
The same
outcome
of the above
all
decades
if
that benefits
we
do
it
every American
sex marria ge fight must be
and
a better alterna tive
wrong
my
moved
off
of
proposal brings that
you can
Sincerely
Steven
Sylwester
2390 Jefferson St
OR
Eugene
Phone
steven
97405 2410
541 343 9695

sylwester
P S You
gmail
com
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
or
is
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
short
otherwise
by Perkins
any transaction
advise
me
230 DISCLOSURE
may be imposed on
NOTICE
is
NOTICE
party
Time
IRS CIRCULAR
that
anytime day or night
applicable law
intended
me
are welcome to call
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
To
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
H
Perkins Coie
Sent
4 18 2014 5 12 40
Subject
RE
We
will
of
instead
that
course
goes
without
From
Isaak
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Subject
I
wonder
Sheila
the
From
Potter
Friday
that
Coie
2014
A
Coie
Perkins Coie
Jr
rather
U S
than
misaak
Kitzhaber et al
addressing
Constitution
should give
mailto
Geiger et al v
the
be amended
you formal notice
perkinscoie
merits of
the
feel
mean
case
like
or whatever
com
5 06 PM
Thomas
Sylwester
would
to
the
guess I
Re
Part 1 of 2
our position
order
Johnson
judge
find
Jr
Perkins
Part 1 of
this to
be a
Coie
Re
Geiger et
rational
basis
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Ha
LLP
2086
H
mailto
April 18
2014
it
light
sheila
Perkins
potter
doj state
Coie
Isaak
Sylwester
reading
as evidently
or us
3 47 PM
Jr
From Steven
Sharing a little
to
Thomas
FW
forward
Perkins
Sheila
Johnson
Subject
but
Perkins
727
Sent
To
saying
From Steven
if
503
to
April 18
Misha Isaak
PHONE
McShane
Misha
RE
be altering
ask Judge
Thomas
Johnson
PM
Part 1 of
Misha
2
Re
Perkins
that
s where
the
Coie
Geiger et
really good
al v
Part 2 hasn
argument
will
arrived
yet
Looking
be
Sheila
From
Steven
Sylwester
Sent
Friday
April 18
To
Joyce
katevts
Anna
Mary
Williams
Von
Ter
Google
Steven
a left
hand
discrimination
am opposed
the
to
from one
hand
same
of
same
impacts of
of
now
that
form a strong
reconsideration
advocating
make
have
the
com
Potter
Sheila
Sylwester
Re
Geiger et
who
such
there
child
is
what
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
and
all
would
the
parents
laws
discriminate
that
but
some
society
should benefit
for their needs
are alone
against
or for the
needs
that
happens
the
in some
evil
is
to
In
against
the
will
and
say that
know
are
negative
smaller group
way
born
unfairly
you might think
their children
longstanding
case
still
be
the
someone
law
and
and
order
of
s obligation
everyone
everyone
the
of
world
They
what
be treated
was
and
is
say that
discriminations
as that
to
prejudice
on the
and
worsen
is
of
will
ever
than
when
Whenever
in Oregon
end
feels like
worsened
discrimination
opinion
it
solved
are actually
single

receiving
different
never
should be in light
reconsideration
this
of
am
on the
for reasons
against
for those
our laws
lived
a smaller group
say that
a strong
know
bit
legalized
and
laws
To
basis
opinion
of
the
one
every
but
onto
and
than
know
to
have
discriminations
exception
in America
Understand
people
those
without
of
people
single
has a right to
outcome
sex marriage
that
unfair
life
so I
Society
and
you want
sex marriage is
negative
is
if
against
more
mary h williams msn
Steven
Part 1 of
60 years ago
group
the
if
Sylwester
in place
to
com mailto
multco us
Sylwester
my whole
problem
impacts of
Many
katevts
Stegge
without
evil
com
Potter
Katharine
at
sylwester gmail
Joyce
Sheila
moved
steven
2 18 PM
mary h williams msn
From Steven
Anna
that
2014
multco us mailto
Subject
mailto
to
is
not
the
today
no one
their children
to
then
just a few
greatest
who
are single
is
and
are
reasonable
guarantee
extent
absolutely
They
It
that
that
the
the
possible
parents
no one
are essentially
many
is
with
disenfranchised
As women
Americans
you four
million women who

poverty
2014
consolidated
First read
http
0A r
u http
steven
htmlk
in America
is
now
McShane
Kitzhaber
necessary
might at
your fellow
up for them
Michael
et
all
women
here
and
3D
last one
who
mean
and
the
oral arguments
Just Do
of
those
are living
next
10
in
Wednesday
in the
It
equal
https
solution
urldefense
11 legal co
proofpoint
equal
com
solution
3D
m W3pUyOxfvzReULMAYVnLus07F0ggUfFsaqTM1Ay67Ms
it
every
those
follows
com 2009
now
Do
for what
com
mean
during
11 legal co
their numbers
especially
al lawsuit
com 2009
despite
and
today
s courtroom
background
html steven
for everyone
about
parents
al v
this for the
steven
url
stand
in Judge
Geiger et
for everyone
v1
should care
are single
Your time to
April 23
with no political
3D
3D
0A
0A
s f9d809301265f937fd0b489cc7b47fcec3035946b382cb224caf420ba1f538a8
My
proposed
http
law
of
amendment
to
legal identity of
blogspot
citizens
0A r
com
the
https
in the
law
U S
Constitution
citizens
in the
urldefense
blogspot
law
Legal
proofpoint
com k
Identity
blogspot
com
com v1
of
url
u http
3D
3D
Citizens
in the
legal identity of
Law
citizens
in the
legal identity
3D
3D
0A
0A
s 8244e3b639f33f65c436b4027e955ec0e0d2f704b0c40a9268a38a8e01ea5362
History
http
of
of
proposed
citizens
in the
identity of
3D
amendment
legal identity of
3D
0A r
law
citizens
and
commentary
citizens
blogspot
in the
in the
com
law
be sure to
law
blogspot
https
blogspot
urldefense
com 2013
3D
the
links
3D
too
11 11 html legal identity
proofpoint
11 11 htmlk
read
com 2013
com v1
url
u http
legal
hphQ
0A
0A
s f887053748516bbfbb36cf10b43b5c2319b0cbcae19ca1b5c2ac03f77e972ba9
I
am working
that
send
the
on another
argument
it
to
you as soon
subject
heading
We
are going
if
we
do it
to
outcome
contentions
to
one
same
that
adds
am finished
read
chance
every
is
with it
to
it
argument
most persuasive
and
do this right
ongoing
fight
American
better
if
and
over
citizen
will
to
all
of
argument
identify it
America
abortion
without
must be moved
a third alternative
Make
layer of
and
as
the
of
above
all
Part 2 of
and
will
2
on
it
sex marriage fight
light
another
most compelling
Consider the
There
alternative
as I
benefits
The
be the
Please
have
wrong
compromise that
its
document
might well
a better
will
Mine

is
exception
off
of
middle ground
everyone
its
present
alternative
and
is
a winner in
either or
my proposal
brings that
you can
Sincerely
Steven
2390
Sylwester
Jefferson St
Eugene
OR
97405
541
steven
sylwester gmail
P S
You
343
2410
Phone
9695
are welcome
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
CIRCULAR
Perkins
avoiding
you have
keep
information
applicable
that
sylwester gmail
com
Time
is
short
the
law
If
received
contents
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
regulations
contained
call
steven
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
IRS
to
com mailto
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
LLP
to
penalties
be used
that
and
ensure
unless
compliance
including
cannot
expressly indicated
any attachments
be used
by the
taxpayer
otherwise
is
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
and
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
Revenue
of
Code
or
ii
promoting
marketing
or recommending
herein
or any attachments
NOTICE
This
have
communication
received
message
and
it
in error
any attachments
to
may contain
another
privileged
please advise
without
party
the
copying
any transaction
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
contents
or matter
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
4 18 2014 5 15 30
Subject
RE
It
make
would
Misha Isaak
From
To
Potter
Friday
Isaak
guess
Isaak
Friday
Potter
wonder
April
18
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 13 PM
Perkins
Coie
be
Thomas R
Johnson
Sylwester
Part
of
Jr
Perkins
Re
altering our position to
Misha
April
Perkins
18
Coie
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber
rather than addressing
S Constitution be amended
mean
et
al
the merits of
case
the
instead ask Judge
feel like that goes without
saying
but
Sheila
Coie
misaak
mailto
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Sylwester
Part
the judge would find this to be a
if
com
perkinscoie
2014 5 06 PM
RE From Steven A
Misha Isaak
Perkins
of
Coie
Re
Geiger et
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Ha
rational basis
Coie LLP
Perkins
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
To
Sheila
to order that the
Subject
Sent
Re
Part 1 of 2
should give you formal notice or whatever
From
RE From Steven A
McShane
To
Coie
Coie LLP
Perkins
will of course
Sent
Perkins
Jr
the oral argument more exciting
Misha
Subject
We
Thomas
PM
503 727 2086
PHONE
Sent
Coie
Johnson
Potter
Friday
Johnson
Subject
FW
Sharing a
li
Sheila
April
18
mailto sheila
Thomas R
Jr
Coie
Perkins
le
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 47 PM
light reading
evidently that s where the
Isaak
Part
of
Misha
Perkins
Re

really
good argument
Coie
Geiger et
will
al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Part 2 hasn t arrived yet
Looking forward to
it
as
be
Sheila
From
Sent
To
Steven Sylwester
Friday
April
Joyce Anna
Subject
18
mailto
steven
mary h
williams
Anna
Mary
Williams
sylwester
gmail
com
2014 2 18 PM
msn com
Part
of
Potter
Sheila
Re
katevts
Geiger et
al
multco
Kitzhaber
us
et
Steven Sylwester
al
Joyce
Sheila Potter
Katharine
Google
Von
Steven
60 years ago
what
it
Ter Stegge
so
feels like
A
I
Sylwester
have
lived
if
am
Simply for
this
purpose
my
was born
whole
life
without a
know
left
hand
every bit of
am
unfair
discrimination
group
Whenever
smaller group
in
is
that
happens
when
never solved
unfair
discriminations
moved from one
are
In the case at hand
same sex marriage
if
legalized in Oregon
is
place
discriminations
Society
To
the problem
that
of
worsened on the
actually
discriminations
unfair
will
still
be
worsen
will
make
has a right to
exception
are
the
know
and
laws
laws discriminate
all
is
evil
is
some way
in
against
someone
and no
evil
is
and
that
is
without
minded person would
right
ever say that
Many
now have
America
in
and
that
Understand
this
who
They are
no one
now
and
today
mean
steven
a sylwester
http
legal identity
of citizens
History of proposed
http
legal identity
law blogspot
am
We
in
will identify
it
as
alternative
mean
2014
Kitzhaber
Constitution
Phone
either
or
fight
legal identity
be sure to read the
com 2013 11 11
the law blogspot
that
adds another
layer
steven
might
at
Judge Michael
Do
lawsuit
et al
all
of citizens
McShane
Just
it
Do
courtroom
It
Law
in
com
the law blogspot
too
links
html legal identity
to do this right
Mine
everyone
better
it
is
a winner
There
if
is
Please
and America
is
in
I will
all
will
of citizens
its
outcome
a third alternative
in
the
you can
com
are welcome to call
CONFIDENTIALITY
me anytime
NOTICE
day or night
Time
to
you
is
short
and
that
as soon as I
argument might
am
finished
with
it
for endless
compromise
The same
97405 2410
gmail
it
decades
if
that benefits
we
do
it
and
my
wrong
every American
Sylwester
sylwester
read
of the above
all
send
suffer
middle ground
541 343 9695
P S You
in
with more than one
every last one of
of argument to
over abortion
contentions
Make
to light
OR
advocating
com
2390 Jefferson St
Eugene
but
not just a
co equal solution for everyone html steven
Sincerely
Steven
is
with no political
many
are single parents
April 23
legal
the law blogspot
Part 2 of 2
without exception
present
who
and
who
citizen
that
com
its
in
and
such as
of everyone
in light
the
for what follows

of citizens

it
those
Geiger et al v
com 2009 11
blogspot
be
that
com
My
of our laws should
today
women
next Wednesday
background
http
absolutely no one
especially
First
is
and
legal
here and
It
essentially
now
is
longstanding
of their children
As women
some
is
child
that
basis
few
a strong opinion
moved
off
of
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
it
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
or
confidential
230 DISCLOSURE
that
me
privileged
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
is
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
4 18 2014 10 10 25
Subject
Re From
Okay
this
sufficiently
is
Sheila
Maybe we
weird
PM
Steven
Sylwester
Re
Part 1 of 2
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
should just call the whole thing off
Lea Ann
On Apr
18 2014
at
3 43
thought you might
From
Steven Sylwester
Sent
To
Friday
Joyce Anna
Subject
nd
Potter
Mary
Williams
sheila
this interesting reading
mailto
steven
mary h
gmail
sylwester
msn com
williams
Anna
Sheila
potter
wrote
doj state or us
Part 2 of 2 has not yet landed
com
2014 2 18 PM
18
April
PM
Part
Potter
of
Sheila
Re
multco
katevts
Geiger et
al
us
Kitzhaber
et
Steven Sylwester
al
Joyce
Sheila Potter
Von
Katharine
Google
so
feels like
it
am
Sylwester
have
if
discrimination
group
Whenever
smaller group
Simply for
this
is
that
will
To
whole
life
without a
know
left
hand
every bit of
happens
unfair
discriminations
moved from one
are

if
same sex marriage
legalized in Oregon
is
are
the
know
that
the problem
of

worsened on the
actually
discriminations
unfair
will
still
be
worsen
has a right to
exception
my
was born
when
never solved
In the case at hand
discriminations
purpose
lived
place
Society
am
unfair
in
Steven
60 years ago
what
Ter Stegge
make
laws
and
all
is
laws discriminate
evil
is
in
some way
against
is
evil
someone
and no
and
right
that
is
without
minded person would
ever say that
Many
basis
in
now have
America
few
and
that
Understand
this
As women
It
They are
now
is
essentially
and
of our laws should
no one
today
who
especially
women
those
next Wednesday
be
are single parents
absolutely no one
today
mean
legal
and
such as
that
that
of everyone
in light
the
but
not just a
here and
longstanding
now
some
of their children
is
is
that
child
who
a strong opinion
and
who
advocating
mean
2014
Kitzhaber
in
at
lawsuit
all
Judge Michael
et al
with more than one
might
every last one of
April 23
Geiger et al v
is
with no political
many
Do
J
it
McShane
Just
Do
s
It
courtroom
First
http
My
steven
a sylwester
legal identity
of citizens
History of proposed
http
legal identity
am
of citizens
will identify
it
its
in
as
Part 2 of 2
fight
alternative
either
or
better
it
is
if
is
a winner
is
in
html
I will
all
Please
will
read
it
to
you
and
that
as soon as I
argument might
am
with
finished
it
for endless
compromise
The same
outcome
a third alternative
of the above
all
send
suffer
middle ground
its
too
links
of argument to
and America
Mine
There
contentions
Make
to light
layer
to do this right
everyone
without exception
present
com 2013 11 11
adds another
over abortion
Law
com
be sure to read the
the law blogspot
that
co equal solution for everyone html

citizen
legal
Constitution
the law blogspot
and
We

it
in
for what follows
com 2009 11
blogspot
http
background
decades
if
that benefits
we
do
it
and
my
wrong
every American
moved
off
of
you can
Sincerely
Steven
Sylwester
2390 Jefferson St
OR
Eugene
Phone
steven
97405 2410
541 343 9695

sylwester
P S You
gmail
com
are welcome to call
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
anytime day or night
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
me
Time
is
short
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
4 19 2014 10 28 55
Subject
Re From
Or just ask the

Sheila
Deputy
Chief
judge
Sheila
to
amend
AM
Steven
the
U S
Lea
Ann
Re
Part 1 of 2
Sylwester
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Constitution
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Apr 18
LEaston
Okay
Lea
On
at
Justice
10 10 PM
dorsayindianlaw
this is
sufficiently
Apr 18
2014
potter
thought
at
Steven
Sylwester
Friday
April 18
To
Joyce
katevts
Maybe
we
Anna
Mary
Williams
dorsayindianlaw
com
should just call
the
wrote
whole
thing
off
Von
Ter
Google
Steven
a left
hand
discrimination
am opposed
the
katevts
or us
Part 2 of
2 has not
sylwester gmail
com mailto
multco us
Sylwester
wrote
yet landed
com
mary h williams msn
Steven
Part 1 of
to
same
if
of
same
negative
impacts of
of
without
now
that
advocating
com
Potter
Sheila
Sylwester
Re
Geiger et
who
the
there
child
Americans
you four
what
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al
and
all
would
the
parents
laws
discriminate
that
but
some
society
should benefit
are alone
against
or for the
needs
with no political
should care
are single
about
parents
what
be treated
that
the
is
to
way
In
against
the
will
and
say that
know
are
negative
smaller group
their children
born
unfairly
you might think
happens
in some
evil
was
and
be
the
someone
law
case
still
and
and
order
is
say that
longstanding
discriminations
as that
to
prejudice
on the
and
worsen
is
of
will
ever
than
when
Whenever
in Oregon
end
feels like
worsened
discrimination
opinion
it
solved
are actually
single

receiving
different
never
of
s obligation
everyone
everyone
the
of
world
your fellow
in America
to
the
today
all
who
then
greatest
are single
They
is
guarantee
and
are
reasonable
that
that
the
the
possible
parents
no one
many
with
is
are essentially
their numbers
mean
especially
It
extent
absolutely
despite
and
to
just a few
no one
women
today
is
not
their children
might at
They
for their needs
million women who
of
should be in light
reconsideration
this
one
such
is
am
on the
for reasons
against
for those
our laws
lived
a smaller group
say that
a strong
know
bit
legalized
and
laws
To
basis
opinion
of
disenfranchised
As women
make
have
the
form a strong
reconsideration
than
every
but
onto
and
to
have
discriminations
exception
in America
Understand
people
those
has a right to
of
people
single
that
outcome
know
sex marriage
Society
unfair
sex marriage is
against
and
life
so I
in place
is
you want
group
the
if
60 years ago
my whole
from one
hand
more
reading
doj state
2 18 PM
Sylwester
problem
impacts of
Many
steven
potter
Stegge
without
evil
sheila
Potter
Katharine
moved
2014
Sheila
Joyce
Sheila
that
mailto
mary h williams msn
From Steven
Anna
Potter
this interesting
multco us mailto
Subject
to
Easton
LEaston
or us mailto
you might find
Sent
at
weird
3 43 PM
doj state
From
com mailto
Ann
sheila
I
2014
of
every
those
last one
who
of
those
are living
in
10
poverty
Your time to
April 23
2014
consolidated
First read
http
My
http
amendment
proposed
am working
it
to
heading
We
are going
if
we
do it
to
compromise that
its
outcome
same
There
alternative
to
read
chance
Consider the
benefits
The
contentions
one
adds
every
with it
is
to
do this right
ongoing
American
fight
it
of
Wednesday
in the
for everyone
Citizens
read
the
in the
html
Law
links
argument
will
too
11 11 html
most persuasive
better
if
and
over
citizen
to
all
of
argument
identify it
America
abortion
without
must be moved
a third alternative
Make
next
It
solution
com 2013
layer of
and
mean
com
blogspot
and
oral arguments
as
the
of
above
all
Part 2 of
and
will
2
on
it
sex marriage fight
light
equal
be sure to
another
the
Just Do
Identity
blogspot
law
it
and
follows
Legal
most compelling
am finished
Please
have
wrong
that
Do
for what
law
now
during
11 legal co
commentary
in the
and
al lawsuit
com 2009
in the
and
citizens
as I
et
here
s courtroom
Constitution
citizens
be the
now
background
U S
document
might well
you as soon
subject
the
amendment
on another
argument
send
the
to
is
McShane
Kitzhaber
necessary
legal identity of
that
legal identity of
of
up for them
Michael
al v
this for the
proposed
History
Geiger et
steven
http
stand
in Judge
a better
will
Mine

is
exception
off
of
its
middle ground
everyone
present
alternative
and
is
a winner in
either or
my proposal
brings that
you can
Sincerely
Steven
2390
Sylwester
Jefferson St
Eugene
OR
97405
541
steven
sylwester gmail
P S
You
343
2410
Phone
9695
are welcome
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
to
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
call
keep
sylwester gmail
information
applicable
that
steven
com
Time
is
short
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
com mailto
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
4 19 2014 11 32 21
Subject
Re From
Well
we
if
Sheila
Steven
AM
Part 1 of 2
Sylwester
Re
Geiger et al v
are going to do that I have a couple of other issues I d like addressed
What
Sylwester s line of thought
what about people who
For example
about single people with no children or coupled people
cats or dislike
dislike
Kitzhaber et al
following
Mr
with no children
And
dogs
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
OR
Portland
LLP
SW
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On Apr
Or
just
19 2014
ask the judge to
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
10 29
at
amend
Potter Sheila
the
US
sheila
potter
wrote
doj state or us
Constitution
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On Apr
18 2014
LEaston
Okay
AM
Justice
10 10
at
PM
dorsayindianlaw
this
is
weird
sufficiently
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
Maybe we
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
should just call the whole thing off
Lea Ann
On Apr
sheila
18 2014
potter
doj state or us
you might
thought
From Steven
Sent
To
Friday
Joyce
Subject
April 18
2014 2 18
Mary
Williams
reading
sylwester
wrote
doj state or us
Part 2 of 2 has not yet landed
gmail
com
PM
williams
mailto katevts
From Steven
Sheila
mailto steven
Anna mary h
Anna
Potter
find this interesting
Sylwester
multco us
katevts
PM
3 43
at
Sylwester
msn com
mailto mary h
multco us
Steven
Part 1 of 2
Re
williams
msn com
Potter
Sheila
Sylwester
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber
et al
Joyce
Sheila Potter
Katharine
Google
Von
Ter Stegge
Steven
60 years ago
so
A
I
Sylwester
have
lived
if
am
Simply for
this
purpose
my
was born
whole
life
without a
know
left
hand
every bit of
what
feels like
it
am
unfair
discrimination
group
Whenever
smaller group
in
is
happens
that
when
never solved
unfair
discriminations
moved from one
are
In the case at hand
same sex marriage
if
legalized in Oregon
is
place
discriminations
Society
To
know
the problem
that
of
are
actually
worsened on the
the unfair discriminations
will
still
be
worsen
will
has a right to
exception
make
and
laws
laws discriminate
all
is
evil
is
some way
in
against
is
someone
and
that
is
without
a nd no right minded person would
evil
ever say that
Many
in
now have
America
and
that
Understand
is
this
of their children
As women
who
They are
now
and
My
steven
a sylwester
http
of citizens
We
I will identify
as
it
Part 2 of 2
fight
present
alternative
either
to light
or
contentions
to do this right
Make
it
better
is
There
if
Mine
is
a winner
is
mean
2014
in
et al
com 2013 11 11
Phone
layer
steven
in
I will
Please read
and America
a
all
will
its
outcome
a third alternative
P S You
com
are welcome to call
CONFIDENTIALITY
me anytime
NOTICE
Just
it
M cShane
Do
is
courtroom during
It
Law
sylwester
day or night
gmail
Time
to
is
com
short
you
and
that
as soon as I
argument might
am
finished
with
it
it
for endless
compromise
The same
you can
mailto steven
it
that
decades
if
we
do
ive
it
wrong
benefits every American
sex marriag e fight must be
a better alternat
97405 2410
gmail
of the above
all
send
suffer
middle ground
541 343 9695

sylwester
all
too
links
of argument to
Sylwester
OR
ight at
Judge Michael
Do
with more than one
or their needs or for the needs
html
2390 Jefferson St
Eugene
but
not just a
com
Sincerely
Steven
every last one of
lawsuit
be sure to read the
everyone
without exception
citizen
advocating
is
adds another
over abortion
that
co equal solution for everyone html
legal
the law blogspot
that
such as
the
that
of everyone
in light
many
are single parents
Kitzhaber
its
in
and
who
April 23
Constitution
the law blogspot
and
be
and
for what follows
legal identity
am
in
those
Geiger et al v
com 2009 11
who
today
women
next Wednesday
blogspot
of citizens
legal identity
History of proposed
of our laws should
absolutely no one
especially
background
http
no one
today
mean
http
disenfranchised Americans with no political
essentially
the oral arguments in the consolidated
First
is
legal
here and
It
now
longstanding
child
some
that
basis
few
a strong opinion
and
moved
my proposal
off
of
brings that
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Katharine
Coie
Jennifer
VON TER STEGGE
Isaak
Misha
Middleton
JMiddleton
Sent
4 21 2014 10 05 30
Subject
National
just
got
Wednesday
moon
would ask
him we d
told
wasn
certainly
for set
oppose
sure what posion
we d
Mary Williams
Johnson
mary h
Thomas
Jr
msn
williams
Perkins
com
com
Na onal Organiza on
moons
for
M
s
et
Na onal
along with
clerk
why
understand
they waited this
over of hearing on
Organiza on
epared to proceed
and le
a few weeks to review their pleading
over and don
They plan to seek
arriage
over but would also let court know they were pr
we d want
set
for
summary judgment and request
three local folks and one county
But he though in fairness to plain s
justicelawyers
Sheila
Potter
Organizaiton for Marriage
to argue against
His clients include
said their
Joyce Anna
AM
the phone Roger Harris local counsel for the
interven on as defendants
He
Lake Perriguey
Perkins Coie
on Wednesday
replies
ate in the
game
to intervene
And
that
take on interven on
Lea Ann
From
Friday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Sheila
mary h
Subject
Works
multco
katevts
us
April
Perriguey
Williams
On
VON TER STEGGE mailto

18 2014 2 46 PM
Katharine
Sent
Re
for
Lea Ann Easton
Johnson
msn com
williams
Thomas R
Jennifer
Jr
Middleton
Coie
Perkins
JMiddleton
Isaak
Misha
justicelawyers
Perkins
Coie
Joyce Anna
Mary
com
me
Thanks
Friday April 18
2014
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
wrote
Red pen
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
18 2014
First draft
Portland
in
Civil
at
Justice
12 14
PM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
please have
doj state or us
at
it
Getting
wrote
will
be
in
a bit
Ms Pew
m writing

like
and
we
to the Court
We
can

helpful
all
are wondering
was
lengthy
certainly
and
we
would
would
like
like
that
We
Judge
met
this
week
to discuss
McShane would
particularly
We
have
but
we
also wanted to ask
On Apr
18 2014
LEaston
We
AM
11 28
at
Lea Ann Easton
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
your email
Lea Ann
From
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Mary
think
mary h williams
msn com
idea to send
Sheila
Deputy
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
williams
justicelawyers
msn com
what
if
I draft
it
to the group
18 2014
AM
Johnson
perkinscoie
ll
com
defer to others
3e
Thomas
me why
it
d be a
Jr
Perkins Coie
Thomas
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
but because
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
97209 4128
CELL 503 914 8918

FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
Original Message
Potter Sheila
mailto sheila p
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
wrote
all
katevts
tell
Justice
11 19
at
agree with Sheila
501
and you can
Potter
mailto TRJohnson
From
Jennifer Middleton
com
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr
1120
it
com
Misha
worth asking
Perkins Coie
Isaak
justicelawyers
Re
it
Jr
VON TER STEGGE
Williams
terrible
doj state or us
AM
2014 11 26
Thomas
JMiddleton
Subject
April 18
Friday
To
Potter Sheila
Sent
perkinscoie
com
ma
bit reticent
From
Potter Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
To
Thomas R
Williams
Jr
mary
JMiddleton
Katharine
Perkins
justicelawyers
4 21 2014 10 14 56
Subject
RE
Oy
Are people
Misha
Lake Perriguey
Perkins
Coie
Johnson
Joyce Anna
Mary
Jennifer Middleton
com
AM
National Organizaiton
available
Isaak
msn com
h williams
Sent
VON TER STEGGE
Coie
for
for a conference
Marriage
call
this morning
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Monday
April 21
2014 10 06 AM
To
Lake Perriguey
Potter Sheila H
Johnson
Thomas R
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna
Mary Williams
Subject
National Org anizaiton for Marriage
Importance
High
Jr
Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
I just got off the phone Roger Harris

local counsel for the National Organization for Marriage
They plan
to seek intervention as defendants
to argue against motions for summary judgment and request set over of
hearing on Wednesday
His clients include three local folks and one county clerk along with National
Organization
He said their motion would ask for set over but would also let court know they were prepared to proceed on
But he though in fairness
to plaintiffs
we d want a few weeks to review their pleading and file
Wednesday
replies
I
told
him we d certainly oppose
intervene
Lea
And that
wasn t
set over
sure what
and don t
position
understand
we d take
why they
on intervent
waited
this late
in the game
to
ion
Ann
From
mailto katevts multco us
Friday
April 18
2014 2 46 PM
Sent
To
Lake Perriguey
Cc
Potter Sheila H
Lea Ann Easton
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
Mary Will iams
Joyce Anna
Subject
Re
logistics
Misha
Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
Works
for
me
Thanks
On
Friday April 18 2014 Lake

Perriguey
Red pen
A
Lake James H
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
Portland
Oregon 97205
T
503
227 1928 tel
503
20227 1928
503
20334 2340
F
503
334 2340 tel
http
www law works com http
www law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian
wrote
of Civil Justice
On Apr 18
2014
at 12 14 PM
Potter Sheila H
First draft
tossing out for your various red
pens
Ms
works com
doj state or us
wrote
please have at it
Getting
on the road momentarily
Pew
I m writing on behalf of counsel

for all the parties in the Geiger and Rummell cases
We met this week to
and we are
wondering whether there are any areas that Judge McShane would
or questions that the Judge would like us to answer in the course
of argument
and we would lik
e to focus argument on
We can certainly prepare argument without the Court s
direction
but we also wanted to ask whether the Judge might have some thoughts on how argument would be
most useful for him
On Apr 18
2014
at 11 28 AM
Lea Ann Easton
wrote
We
await
Lea
From
Sent
To
Cc
com mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3cmailto
Ann
Potter Sheila H
Friday
April 18
2014 11 26 AM
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Isaak
Coie
Misha
doj state or us
Perkins
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake
Perriguey
Joyce Anna
Mary
Williams
mary h williams msn com mailto mary h williams msn com mailto mary h williams msn com 3cmailto mary h willi
ams msn com
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton justicelawyers com mailto JMiddleton justicelawyers com mailto JMiddleton justicelawyers com 3cm
ailto JMiddleton justicelawyers com
Subject
Re
what if
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
draft something
up and send
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr 18
2014
TRJohnson
at 11 19 AM
perkinscoie
I agree with Sheila

I
us to ask this at all
CELL
503 914 8918
FAX
503 346 2176
E MAIL
on perkinscoie com
From
Original Message
Potter Sheila H
Kate
von
Ter
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
perkinscoie
com
ll
but because
of the nature
defer
to
Coie
others
mailto sheila
perkinscoie
of this argument I
Stegge
Att orney
mailto TRJohnson
com 3e
m a bit
wrote
reticent for
LLP
Assistant County
Coie
com mailto TRJohnson
Thomas R
Johnson
Perkins
Couch Street
1120 N W
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2176
Senior
Multnomah
County
Attorney
com 3cmailto
trjohns
501 SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
mailto
katevts
co
Portland
OR
97214
fax
multnomah
or
us
multco
us
http
multco us
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
Coie
Isaak
JMiddleton
4 21 2014 10 16 46
Subject
RE
am
From
To
Oy
RE
Katharine
mailto
LEaston
Lake
moon
would ask
certainly
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
JMiddleton
Misha
justicelawyers
com
morning
com
Perriguey
Potter

msn com
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
Isaak
Sheila
williams
we d
moons
for
Na onal Organiza on
Misha
justicelawyers
com
clerk
along with
understand
why
they waited this
et
Na onal
over of hearing on
Organiza on
epared to proceed
and le
over and don
They plan to seek
arriage
we d want
set
for
for set
oppose
sure what posion
this
dorsayindianlaw
to argue against
His clients include
him we d
wasn
call
said their
told
Jr
Middleton
Marriage
for
Thomas R
Jennifer
High
Wednesday
com
Johnson
msn com
williams
Organizaiton
He
Perkins
com
21 2014 10 06 AM
Joyce Anna
Importance
got
Jr
msn
Marriage
for
for a conference
VON TER STEGGE
National
Lake Perriguey
available
April
Coie
Subject
just
doj state or us
potter
Organizaiton
National
Monday
Perkins
Thomas
williams
AM
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
mary h
National Organizaiton for Marriage
mailto sheila
Joyce Anna
Coie
Are people
From
Mary Williams
21 2014 10 15 AM
April
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
Sheila
Monday
Perkins
justicelawyers
Any me
Potter
Sent
Joyce Anna
Perkins Coie
Sent
Yes
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Middleton
Jennifer
Misha
on Wednesday
replies
ate in the
game
to intervene
And
that
take on interven on
Lea Ann
From

18 2014 2 46 PM
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Sheila
mary h
Subject
Re
On
for
Lea Ann Easton

williams
us
Red pen
me
2014
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
Johnson
Thomas R
Jennifer
Middleton
Jr
Perkins
JMiddleton
Coie
Isaak
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
Street
97205
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
Misha
justicelawyers
Thanks
Lake James
msn com
Friday April 18
1906
multco
Perriguey
Williams
Works
katevts
April
wrote
com
Perkins
Coie
Joyce Anna
Mary
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
18 2014
Justice
PM
12 14
at
Potter
Sheila
in
potter
sheila
First draft
Portland
Civil
please have
doj state or us
at
Getting
it
wrote
will
be
in
a bit
Ms Pew
I
m writing
and
like
we
We
to the Court
can
are wondering

helpful
all
was
and
lengthy
we
would
would
like
like
that
We
this
week
to discuss
McShane would
Judge
particularly
We
have
certainly
met
but
we
also wanted to ask
On Apr
18 2014
LEaston
We
AM
11 28
at
Lea Ann Easton
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
your email
Lea Ann
From
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Mary
Isaak
mary h williams
msn com
think
Sheila
justicelawyers
Re
it
Deputy
worth asking
williams
justicelawyers
msn com
Jennifer Middleton
com
what
if
I draft
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
Potter
18 2014
at
agree with Sheila
Justice
11 19
mailto TRJohnson
AM
perkinscoie
ll
Johnson
com
defer to others
all
Thomas
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr
1120
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
it
com
Misha
idea to send
Perkins Coie
VON TER STEGGE
Williams
terrible
Jr
doj state or us
AM
2014 11 26
Thomas
JMiddleton
Subject
April 18
Friday
To
Potter Sheila
Sent
97209 4128
503 914 8918
LLP
3e
Thomas
Jr
Perkins Coie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
wrote
but because
ma
bit reticent
FAX
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
Original Message
From
Potter Sheila
mailto sheila p
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
4 21 2014 10 19 46
Subject
Re
How
msn com
williams
Sent
National
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
mary h
Williams
Tom
Jennifer
Johnson
Middleton
Misha Isaak
JMiddleton
Joyce Anna
Mary
com
justicelawyers
AM
about 1 30
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
Oy
Are people
From
Monday
Katharine
Subject
for a conference
mailto
LEaston
Lake
moon
would ask
certainly
Perriguey
Potter

msn com
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
Isaak
Sheila
williams
we d
moons
for
Na onal Organiza on
Misha
justicelawyers
com
clerk
along with
understand
why
they waited this
et
Na onal
over of hearing on
Organiza on
epared to proceed
and le
over and don
They plan to seek
arriage
we d want
set
for
for set
oppose
sure what posion
morning
com
dorsayindianlaw
to argue against
His clients include
him we d
wasn
wrote
doj state or us
Marriage
for
told
this
said their
call
potter
High
Wednesday
sheila
Organizaiton
He
Potter Sheila
21 2014 10 06 AM
Joyce Anna
National
got
AM
10 14
VON TER STEGGE
Importance
just
Justice
available
April
Coie
Perkins
at
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
To
21 2014
Civil
on Wednesday
replies
ate in the
game
to intervene
And
that
take on interven on
Lea Ann
From
Sent

18 2014 2 46 PM
Katharine
Friday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Sheila
mary h
Subject
Re
On
for
Lea Ann Easton

williams
us
me
msn com
Johnson
Thomas R
Jennifer
Middleton
Jr
Perkins
JMiddleton
Coie
Isaak
Thanks
2014
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
Misha
justicelawyers
Friday April 18
Red pen
multco
Perriguey
Williams
Works
katevts
April
wrote
com
Perkins
Coie
Joyce Anna
Mary
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
18 2014
Justice
PM
12 14
at
Potter
Sheila
in
potter
sheila
First draft
Portland
Civil
please have
doj state or us
at
Getting
it
wrote
will
be
in
a bit
Ms Pew
m writing
and
like
we
We
to the Court
can
are wondering

helpful
all
was
and
lengthy
we
would
would
like
like
that
We
this
week
to discuss
McShane would
Judge
particularly
We
have
certainly
met
but
we
also wanted to ask
On Apr
18 2014
LEaston
We
AM
11 28
at
Lea Ann Easton
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
your email
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Re
Subject
think
Sheila
it
Deputy
Isaak
mary h williams
msn com
justicelawyers
worth asking
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
williams
justicelawyers
msn com
Jennifer Middleton
com
what
if
I draft
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
18 2014
at
agree with Sheila
all
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
it
Justice
11 19
mailto TRJohnson
com
Misha
On Apr
Perkins Coie
VON TER STEGGE
idea to send
terrible
Jr
doj state or us
AM
2014 11 26
Thomas
Williams
JMiddleton
April 18
To
Mary
Potter Sheila
Friday
AM
perkinscoie
ll
Johnson
com
defer to others
3e
Thomas
Jr
Perkins Coie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
wrote
but because
ma
bit reticent
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
97209 4128
503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
Original Message
From
Potter Sheila
mailto sheila p
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
Katharine
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Potter
Sheila
mary h
VON TER STEGGE
From
Lea Ann Easton
williams
Sent
4 21 2014 10 23 42
Subject
Re
m available
reconsider
at
1 30
there
if
is
National
msn com
Tom
Johnson
Jennifer
JMiddleton
Mary Williams
com
justicelawyers
AM
told Roger Harris that Multco opposes the intervention
a consensus
Joyce Anna
Misha Isaak
Middleton
that
the inclusion
of opposition
is
as untimely
We
are happy to
a benefit
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
500
Suite
503 988 3377
Portland
County Attorney
OR
97214
fax
multco us
On Mon Apr 21
How
2014
at
10 19
AM
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
wrote
about 1 30
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
Oy
Are people
From
Sent
To
21 2014
Katharine
Subject
Coie
got
10 14
April
AM
Potter Sheila
for a conference
mailto
LEaston
sheila
call
this
dorsayindianlaw
potter
wrote
doj state or us
morning
com
21 2014 10 06 AM
VON TER STEGGE

Joyce Anna
Lake
Perriguey
Potter
Organizaiton
for

msn com
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
Sheila
williams
Isaak
Misha
justicelawyers
Marriage
High
Wednesday
Justice
available
National
Importance
just
at
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
Perkins
Civil
to argue against
His clients include
moons
for
Na onal Organiza on
for
arriage
clerk
along with
Na onal
et
They plan to seek

over of hearing on
Organiza on
com
He
said their
moon
would ask
for set
him we d
told
wasn
certainly
oppose
sure what posion
we d
we d want
set
over and don
understand
why
they waited this
epared to proceed
and le
on Wednesday
replies
ate in the
game
to intervene
And
that
take on interven on
Lea Ann
From

18 2014 2 46 PM
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Sheila
mary h
Subject
Re
On
multco
us
Perriguey
Williams
Works
katevts
April
for
Lea Ann Easton
msn com
williams
Johnson
Thomas R
Jennifer
Middleton
Jr
Coie
Perkins
JMiddleton
Isaak
Misha
justicelawyers
Perkins
Coie
Joyce Anna
Mary
com
me
Thanks
Friday April 18
2014
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
wrote
Red pen
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
18 2014
First draft
Portland
Ms Pew
in
Civil
at
Justice
12 14
PM
Potter
Sheila

a bit
sheila
potter
please have
doj state or us
at
it
Getting
wrote
will
be
in
m writing
and
like
we
We
to the Court
can

helpful
all
are wondering
was
and
lengthy
we
would
would
like
like
that
We
this
week
to discuss
particularly
We
have
certainly
met
McShane would
Judge
but
we
also wanted to ask
On Apr
18 2014
LEaston
We
AM
11 28
at
Lea Ann Easton
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
your email
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Mary
JMiddleton
think
Isaak
mary h williams
msn com
Sheila
Deputy
worth asking
what
mailto JMiddleton
18 2014
at
agree with Sheila
if
I draft
Jennifer Middleton
com
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
Justice
11 19
AM
perkinscoie
ll
Johnson
com
defer to others
all
Thomas
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
FAX
justicelawyers
msn com
Potter
mailto TRJohnson
CELL
williams
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr
1120
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
it
com
Misha
idea to send
terrible
Perkins Coie
VON TER STEGGE

justicelawyers
Re
it
Jr
doj state or us
AM
2014 11 26
Thomas
Williams
Subject
April 18
Friday
To
Potter Sheila
97209 4128
503 914 8918
503 346 2176
LLP
3e
Thomas
Jr
Perkins Coie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
wrote
but because
ma
bit reticent
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
Original Message
From
Potter Sheila
mailto sheila p
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
4 21 2014 10 34 37
Subject
RE
My
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Monday
Oy
Monday
Katharine
Subject
Joyce Anna
Lake
moon
him we d
would ask
certainly
Coie
Isaak
JMiddleton
Misha
justicelawyers
com
morning
Perriguey
Potter

msn com
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
Isaak
Sheila
williams
we d
moons
for
Na onal Organiza on
Misha
justicelawyers
com
clerk
along with
understand
why
they waited this
et
Na onal
over of hearing on
Organiza on
epared to proceed
and le
over and don
They plan to seek
arriage
we d want
set
for
for set
oppose
sure what posion
Perkins
com
dorsayindianlaw
to argue against
His clients include
said their
wasn
Jr
Middleton
Marriage
for
told
this
Wednesday
Thomas R
Jennifer
High
call
Organizaiton
National
got
LEaston
VON TER STEGGE
Importance
just
mailto
Johnson
msn com
williams
21 2014 10 06 AM
April
Coie
Perkins
brieng
Marriage
for
for a conference
available
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Lake Perriguey
Organizaiton
National
Are people
From
To
RE
their
doj state or us
potter
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Joyce Anna
Coie
Subject
mailto sheila
and respond to
21 2014 10 15 AM
April
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins
He
AM
gut ins nct says to agree to interven on and short con nuance of argument to read
From
Sheila
on Wednesday
replies
ate in the
game
to intervene
And
that
take on interven on
Lea Ann
From

18 2014 2 46 PM
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Sheila
mary h
Subject
Re
On
for
Lea Ann Easton

williams
Red pen
me
msn com
2014
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
skype
www
Thomas R
Jennifer
Lake Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
Johnson
Middleton
Jr
Perkins
JMiddleton
Coie
Isaak
Street
97205
law works com
lagojaime
lake
law works com
Misha
justicelawyers
Thanks
Lake James
http
us
Friday April 18
1906
multco
Perriguey
Williams
Works
katevts
April
wrote
com
Perkins
Coie
Joyce Anna
Mary
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
18 2014
Justice
PM
12 14
at
Potter
Sheila
in
potter
sheila
First draft
Portland
Civil
please have
doj state or us
at
Getting
it
wrote
will
be
in
a bit
Ms Pew
m writing
and
like
we
We
to the Court
can
are wondering

helpful
all
was
and
lengthy
we
would
would
like
like
that
We
this
week
to discuss
McShane would
Judge
particularly
We
have
certainly
met
but
we
also wanted to ask
On Apr
18 2014
LEaston
We
AM
11 28
at
Lea Ann Easton
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
your email
Lea Ann
From
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Mary
think
mary h williams
msn com
Sheila
idea to send
Deputy
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
williams
justicelawyers
msn com
Jennifer Middleton
com
what
if
I draft
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
Chief Trial Counsel
18 2014
at
agree with Sheila
Justice
11 19
AM
perkinscoie
ll
Johnson
com
defer to others
3e
Thomas
Jr
Perkins Coie
Thomas
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
but because
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
97209 4128
CELL 503 914 8918

FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
wrote
all
1120
Potter
mailto TRJohnson
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
it
On Apr
com
Misha
worth asking
Perkins Coie
Isaak
justicelawyers
Re
it
Jr
VON TER STEGGE
Williams
terrible
doj state or us
AM
2014 11 26
Thomas
JMiddleton
Subject
April 18
Friday
To
Potter Sheila
Sent
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
ma
bit reticent
Original Message
From
Potter Sheila
mailto sheila p
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Jennifer
To
CC
Joyce Anna
Middleton
Tom
Isaak
Sheila
Potter
4 21 2014 10 41 19
Subject
Re
too just informed Mr
Jennifer
Street
Eugene
OR 97401
AM
behalf
the Rummel
of
plaintiffs
we
that
oppose the motion as untimely
1050
Ste
com
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
may
This message
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
msn com Misha
683 2506
jmiddleton
If
williams
PC
Schaller
975 Oak
on
mary h
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
541
National
Harris
Mary Williams
Johnson
Sent
VON TER STEGGE

H Lea Ann Easton
available
there
1 30
at
told
contain
multco us
katevts
it
and
communications
notify
is
protected
the sender
4 21 2014 10 23 AM
Roger Harris that Multco opposes the intervention
a consensus that the inclusion of opposition
is
confidential
please delete
as untimely
We
are happy to reconsider
if
a benefit
Kate von Ter Stegge

Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138

katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Mon Apr 21 2014

How about 1 30
Lake James
at
10 19 AM
Lake
Perriguey
law works
lake
com
wrote
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
Apr 21
Oy Are
From
Sent
To
2014
people
Katharine
Subject
Coie
available
got
April
a conference
mailto
LEaston
sheila
call this
doj state or us
potter
wrote
morning
dorsayindianlaw
com
21 2014 10 06 AM
Joyce Anna
Lake
Perriguey
Potter
Organizaiton
for

msn com
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
Sheila
williams
Isaak
Misha
justicelawyers
Marriage
High
Wednesday
for
Potter Sheila
VON TER STEGGE
National
Importance
just
10 14 AM
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
Perkins
at
to argue against
His clients include
moons
for
Na onal Organiza on
for
arriage
summary judgment and request se
clerk
along with
Na o
nal
They plan to seek

over of hearing on
Organiza on
com
He
said their
moon
would ask
for set
him we d
told
wasn
oppose
certainly
sure what posion
we d
we d want
over and don
set
understand
why
they waited this
on Wednesday
epared to proceed
and le
replies
ate in the
game
to intervene
And
that
take on interven on
Lea Ann
From

18 2014 2 46 PM
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Sheila
mary h
Subject
Re
Works
me
for
Friday
Red pen
Lea Ann Easton

williams
Thomas R
Johnson
msn com
Jr
Middleton
Jennifer
Perkins
Coie
JMiddleton
Isaak
Misha
justicelawyers
Perkins
Joyce Anna
Coie
Mary
com
Thanks
18 2014
April
Lake
Perriguey
law works
lake
com
wrote
James H
Lake
us
Perriguey
Williams
On
multco
katevts
April
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison Street
Oregon 97205
Portland
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
law works
lagojaime
OTLA Guardian
On
Apr 18
First
in
Ms
com
draft
of
2014
tossing
Civil
at
Justice
12 14 PM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
out for your various red pens
potter
please have at
Getting
on the road momentarily
but
will
be
in Portland
Pew
writing
on
behalf
of
counsel for
and we are wondering
argument
or
briefing
questions
was lengthy
that
all
whether
there
the Judge would
and we would
like
to
are any areas that Judge McShane
like
thoughts
on how argument would be most
Apr 18
2014
at
11 28 AM
useful
Lea Ann Easton
wrote
Lea Ann
We
met
would
focus argument on those areas that
certainly
We
it
wrote
bit
argument
On
doj state or us
for
but
we
also
wanted
will
to
this
week
particularly
We
be most
ask whether
have a
helpful
to
to discuss
like
lot
plans for oral
us to cover in
of
lawyers
the Court
We
and the
can
the Judge might have some
him
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Friday
mailto sheila
Thomas R
Johnson
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 26 AM
18
April
Jr
Perkins
Coie
VON TER STEGGE Isaak Misha Perkins Coie Lea Ann Easton
Jennifer
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com mailto JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
Cc
Katharine
Re
Subject
think
it
send
to
Deputy
what
worth asking
if
draft
something
up and send
to
it
the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
terrible
idea
Potter
Counsel
Chief Trial
Oregon Department
of Justice
On
11 19 AM
Apr 18
mailto
Mary Williams
it
Sheila
Joyce Anna
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
2014
at
TRJohnson
agree with Sheila
Couch
defer
ll
Thomas R Johnson
1120 N
Johnson
perkinscoie
to
Perkins
com
Thomas R
3e
others
Jr
Perkins
TRJohnson
Coie
perkinscoie
com
wrote
but because of the nature of this argument
ma
bit
reticent
for
us to ask this at
all
Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
CELL
FAX
OR 97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918

503 346 2176
E MAIL trjohnson
Original
From
Potter
com
perkinscoie
mailto
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
Message
Sheila
mailto
sheila
Kate von Ter Stegge

501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138

katevts
Suite
500
OR
This e mail
503 988 3377 fax
may
contain
NOTICE
information that
advise
County Attorney
97214
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
If
Multnomah
Portland
me immediately
attachments
it
by reply e mail
from your system
is
privileged
confidential

keep the contents
or
or
otherwise
otherwise
confidential
that
under applicable
and immediatel y
delete
law
please
the message and any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Roger
lake
Harris
Joyce Anna
Sent
4 21 2014 11 05 02
Subject
RE
Geiger et
This communication
Notice
intended
for
and are hereby
Notice 2
To comply
communication
purpose
of
it
et
US
al
District
may
and purpose
communication
to another
is
perkinscoie
com
cv 01834
MC
by law
you are not the
If
inform you that any

not intended
is
13
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
is strictly
we
No 6
Docket
protected
any attachments
any transaction
party
Oregon
Court
contain
and
US
federal tax advice
be used
to
avoiding
recommending
this
that
IRS regulations
with
including
com TRJohnson
justicelawyers
multco us
any attachments
individual
notified
jmiddleton
katevts
AM
including
you should delete
recipient
attachments
v Kitzhaber
al
specific
com
law works
Sheila
Potter
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
contained
used
promoting marketing
ii
in this
for the
or
herein
Roger
ve
left
you a voice mail message regarding the Geiger

morning
earlier this
Geiger
behalf of the
continuance
have conferred
with clients
we
are opposed
that
plaintiffs
plaintiff
s position on the
and my co counsel
to the
Mr
as
intervention
motion
is
it
to intervene
Since
we
spoke
Please advise the court on
Perriguey
untimely
We
are also opposed
to
on Wednesday
of the hearing
Thank you
Lea Ann Easton
Dorsay Easton LLP
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
From
Sent
To
Roger Harris
Monday
April
law works
lake
anna joyce
Subject
mailto
roger
com
Lea Ann Easton
doj state or us
Geiger et
hbclawyers
com
21 2014 10 51 AM
al
Kitzhaber
et
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
doj state or us
sheila potter
US
al
District
katevts
Court
com
multco
Oregon
TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
us
Docket No
6 13
cv
01834 MC
Dear Counsel
This e mail
matter
We
intervene
to
to
is
up
follow
to
and confirmation
represent the National
and appear
LR 7 1 we have
On
several telephone
Organization for Marriage
NOM
calls in the
We
above referenced
anticipate
filing
NOM
following
At this point in time
have made the
will
you
to
Pursuant
stipulate
following contacts
responses
Plaintiffs
to confer
s appearance
a motion
and pending summary judgment moti on s
sought to confer regarding the parties position for such a motion
behalf of
need
my
in opposition to the complaint
oppose or not oppose
and received the
of
Geiger Nelson
with clients
Duehmig
and other counsel
Ms
Mr
Perriguey Position unascertained
Easton
Not opposed
to intervention
will
opposed
On
to
Opposed
On
If
Mr Johnson
VM
professional courtesies
Attorneys
Harris
SW
VM
hearing
Tanner
Chickadonz
Ms
Middleton
no response
Kitzhaber
Rosenblum
Woodward
Waldruff
in your position or
Ms
Von Ter Stegge
have any questions
and consideration
P C
and Counselors
T 503 968 1475

5000
Left
SJM
Rummell West
Plaintiffs
Ms
Potter
and
Ms
Joyce
no response
behalf of Defendant
you have any change
Roger
in the scheduled
behalf of Defendants
Left
On
any delay
behalf of Consolidated
F 503 968 2003
Meadows Road
Suite
D 503
596 2910
hbclawyers
400 Lake Oswego
OR
com
97035
Bio
vCard
Opposed
do not
hesitate
to call
Thank you
for your
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Jennifer
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
4 21 2014 12 39 56
Subject
RE
we
So should
Middleton
Potter
Sheila
Mary Williams
mary h
williams
msn com
Misha Isaak
Tom
Johnson
PM
not opposing the interven on to avoid
consider
VON TER STEGGE
possibility
of
mo on to
We
and then having case stayed while they pursue appeal of denial of interven on
intervene being denied
co
uld oppose delaying
on summary judgment
hearing
Lea Ann
From
Middleton
Jennifer
Sent
Monday
April
To
Lake
Cc
Joyce Anna
Perriguey
Subject
Re
Katharine
Potter
Jennifer
975 Oak
Street
Eugene
OR 97401
privilege
for
behalf
Williams
mary h
williams
the Rummel
of
plaintiffs
we
that
is
This message
VON TER STEGGE
at
may
contain
1 30
told
katevts
multco
communications
confidential
please delete
us
it
and
notify
is
503 988 3138

katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
as untimely
a benefit
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Mon Apr 21 2014

How about 1 30
Lake James
at
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
Portland
Madison Street
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
97205
law works com
lagojaime
10 19 AM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
protected
the sender
4 21 2014 10 23 AM
SE Hawthorne
skype
Johnson
com
NOTICE
http
Tom
Kate von Ter Stegge
1906
Misha Isaak
PC
If
Katharine
501
msn com
Marriage
1050
justicelawyers
available
there
VON TER STEGGE

H Lea Ann Easton Mary
on
Harris
Schaller
Ste
CONFIDENTIALITY
com
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
541
Sheila
Organizaiton
National
JMiddleton
mailto
21 2014 10 41 AM
law works
com
wrote
We
if
OTLA
On
Apr 21
Oy
Monday
Katharine
Perkins
JMiddleton
Subject
got
mailto
Joyce Anna
justicelawyers
Importance
just
for a conference
LEaston
VON TER STEGGE
Lake
Potter
H Johnson Thomas R Jr Perkins

msn com
Jennifer Middleton
Sheila
williams
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Marriage
for
mo on
said their
would ask
him we d
t
certainly
for set
oppose
sure what posion
mo ons
for
Na onal
we d
arriage
clerk
along with
Na o
understand
why they
waited this
They plan to seek

over of hearing on
Organiza on
epared to proceed
and le
over and don
nal
we d want
set
Organiza on for
wasn
Perriguey
to argue against
He
com
dorsayindianlaw
His clients include
that
morning
com
Wednesday
told
this
wrote
High
doj state or us
potter
call
Organizaiton
National
sheila
21 2014 10 06 AM
April
Coie
Potter Sheila
available
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
10 14 AM
at
Are people
From
To
2014
on Wednesday
replies
ate in the
game
to intervene
And
take on interven on
Lea Ann
From

18 2014 2 46 PM
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Sheila
mary h
Subject
Re
On
for
Lea Ann Easton

williams
me
Lake James
2014
Lake Perriguey
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
Portland
Madison
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
skype
Street
Oregon 97205
http
www
Thomas R
Jennifer
Middleton
Jr
Perkins
JMiddleton
Coie
Isaak
law works com
lagojaime
lake
law works com
Misha
justicelawyers
Thanks
Red pen
Johnson
msn com
Friday April 18
1906
multco us
Perriguey
Williams
Works
katevts
April
wrote
com
Perkins
Coie
Joyce Anna
Mary
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr 18
2014
Justice
PM
12 14
at
Potter
Sheila
in
potter
sheila
First draft
Portland
Civil
please have
doj state or us
at
Getting
it
wrote
will
be
in
a bit
Ms Pew
m writing
and
like
we
We
to the Court
helpful
can
are wondering
was
We
all
lengthy
and
we
would
would
like
like
that
this
week
to discuss
McShane would
Judge
particularly
We
have
certainly
met
but
we
also wanted to ask
On Apr 18
2014
LEaston
We
AM
11 28
at
Lea Ann Easton
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Lea Ann
From
April 18
Friday
To
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Mary
think
Sheila
it
Deputy
worth asking
what
williams
justicelawyers
msn com
Jennifer Middleton
com
if
I draft
it
to the group
and you can
tell
me why
it
d be a
Chief Trial Counsel
11 19
2014
at
mailto TRJohnson
agree with Sheila
AM
perkinscoie
ll
Johnson
com
defer to others
all
Thomas
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
Potter
On Apr 18
1120
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins Coie
it
of Justice
at
Misha
msn com
com
Oregon Department
Isaak
idea to send
doj state or us
AM
Perkins Coie
mary h williams
justicelawyers
Re
terrible
Jr
VON TER STEGGE
Williams
Subject
2014 11 26
Thomas
JMiddleton
Potter Sheila
Sent
OR
97209 4128
LLP
3e
Thomas
Jr
Perkins Coie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
wrote
but because
m a bit
reticent
for us to ask this
PHONE
CELL
FAX
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
Original Message
From
Potter Sheila
mailto sheila p
Kate von Ter Stegge

501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138

katevts
Suite
500
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
law
Multnomah
Portland
If
may
contain
NOTICE
information that
please advise
attachments
me
it
is
privileged
from your system
confidential
or
otherwise
appears from the context or otherwise

that
you have received
and imm
ediately
this
delete
under applicable
e mail in error
the message and any
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
4 21 2014 12 49 30
Subject
NOM
NOM
Attachments
The
200
Sheila
200 landscape pdf
release language is teeny and

and it
s visible that way
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
illegible
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Justice

Portland
OR 97201
Suite
Phone
FAX
971
PM
press release
673
1880
410
971
673
5000
in PDF
form
ended
up printing
it
landscape
at
Statement from the National Organization
fo
Home http www nationformarriage org
DONATE HTTPS
http www
WWW
Page 1 of 21
Contact
Us http www
NATIONFORMARRIAGE
nationformarriageorgcont
ORG DONATE
nationformarriageorg
ADVOCACY CENTER HTTP CAPWIZ COM NATIONFO
NOM BLOG
Home http www nomblog com
Marriage
Regarding
States
http www nomblog com category states
Oregon Attorney General's
Decision
to
Abandon
Defense
Previous Entry
http www nomblog com 38946
of
Oregon
Marriage
http www nomblog com category states oregon
Amendment
Next Entry
4 21 2014
fo
for
Page 2 of 21
Marriage
Regarding Oregon Attorney General's Decision to Abandon

Defense of Marriage Amendment
FEBRUARY 20 2014 AT
LLiikkee
3 35 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact Elizabeth Ray or
20
February
Matille
she would enforce
all
the
laws
the National
DC
The
Organization
Attorney General
for
those she personally

of
may be
Marriage
Ellen Rosenblum
Oregon She swore an
defense
not just those
following
duty to defend the marriage
just
enacted
by
duty to defend the
Oregon She swore an oath
the people of
she personally agrees with
of office that
Brian Brown NOM
Washington
of
shamefully abandoning her constitutional
is
marriage amendment overwhelmingly
2014
703 683 5004
Thebolt
Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum
president
294
214
attributed
to
Brian
Brown
president
of
NOM
is
shamefully abandoning
amendment
oath of office
overwhelmingly
that
enacted by the people
she would enforce
agrees with The people are
the laws they enact and the marriage
her constitutional
the laws not
all
entitled
to
a vigorous
amendment
is
no exception
4 21 2014
to that
conclusion
amendment
the
that
Supreme Court
amendment
win
its
to
marriage
US Supreme
men
children produced
and
by
ruling
women
their
is
It
by
that
Page 3 of 21
her
in
rational legal
arguments Just
last
June
the
US
the purview of the states not the federal government
the Court believes
to invalidate
to benefit
Utah's marriage
there is a good likelihood
issued by an activist federal judge Marriage
together
union
is
dead wrong
Court ordered a decision
be stayed strongly signaling
appeal against the
exists to bring
Rosenblum
cannot be supported
ruled that regulating
Most recently a unanimous
will
Ms
solemn obligation Further
fo
is
that
the state
our only institution
the couple and to provide an ideal environment
that
for
can and must be defended as a unique essential and profoundly
any
good
institution
To
schedule an interview
Elizabeth
with Brian
President of the National
Ray eraycrcpublicrelations com
mthebolt crcpublicrelations com

Paid for by
Washington
LLiikkee
Brown
The
DC
mailtoeraycrcpublicrelations
mailtomthebolt crcpublicrelations
National Organization
20006
not authorized
for
was
written by
com
for
com
at
NOM
candidate's
or
Marriage please contact

or Matille
Thebolt
703 683 5004
Marriage Brian Brown president 2029
by any candidate
214
This entry
Organization
committee
Street
New
NW
Suite 300
68A405
1f
294
Staff posted
on at
3 35 pm
filed
under Oregon
http www
nomblog
com category
states oregon
Press Releases
http www
nomblog
com category
pressreleases
Same Sex
Marriage
4 21 2014
Page 4 of 21
com category ssm Bookmark the permalink

nomblog com 38947
Follow any comments here with the RSS feed
http www nomblog com 38947 feed Both comments and trackbacks
http www
http www
this post
fo
nomblog
for
are
currently closed
Previous Entry
Next Entry
4 21 2014
fo
Page 5 of 21
4 21 2014
fo
Page 6 of 21
4 21 2014
fo
Page 7 of 21
4 21 2014
fo
Page 8 of 21
4 21 2014
fo
Page 9 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 10 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 11 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 12 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 13 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 14 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 15 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 16 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 17 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 18 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 19 of 21
4 21 2014
Page 20 of 21
4 21 2014
http www facebook com NationForMarriage
Page 21 of 21
http twitter com nomupdate
http www youtube com user NationForMarriage
Home http www nationformarriage org
NOM
Blog
Donate
https www nationformarriage orgdonate
Advocacy Center http capwiz com nationformarriage home
4 21 2014
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Jennifer
Middleton
Katharine
mary h
williams
msn com
Sent
4 21 2014 1 05 35
Subject
Re
Conference
call
Misha Isaak
Tom
Joyce Anna
Potter
Sheila
Mary
Williams
Johnson
PM
1 30
at
Call in number
National
VON TER STEGGE
1 862
902 0250
9166667
PIN
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
21 2014
we
So should
Civil
at
Justice
12 39
consider
PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
not opposing the interven on to avoid
possibility
of
wrote
mo on to
We
and then having case stayed while they pursue appeal of denial of interven on
intervene being denied
co
uld oppose delaying
on summary judgment
hearing
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Jennifer
Monday
April
To
Lake
Cc
Joyce Anna
Perriguey
Subject
Middleton
Re
Katharine
Potter
National
Jennifer
Eugene
541
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
Sheila
VON TER STEGGE

Organizaiton
Harris
on
for
behalf
Williams
mary h
williams
msn com
Misha Isaak
Tom
Johnson
Marriage
of
the Rummel
plaintiffs
that
we
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
mailto
21 2014 10 41 AM
Street
Schaller
Ste
PC
1050
OR 97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
If
com
NOTICE
This message
may
contain
communications
confidential
it
and
notify
protected
the sender
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
available
there
is
1 30
at
told
multco
katevts
4 21 2014 10 23 AM
us
is
as untimely
We
if
a benefit
Kate von Ter Stegge

501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138

katevts
Suite
500
Multnomah
OR
Portland
503 988 3377
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Mon Apr 21 2014

How about 1 30
Lake James
at
10 19 AM
Lake
Perriguey
com
law works
lake
wrote
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
Apr 21
Oy
Sent
Katharine
JMiddleton
got
LEaston
Joyce Anna
Lake
Perriguey
Potter
H Johnson Thomas R Jr Perkins

msn com
Jennifer Middleton
Sheila
williams
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Marriage
for
to argue against
moon
would ask
certainly
for set
oppose
sure what posion
moons
for
Na onal Organiza on
we d
arriage
clerk
along with
Na o
understand
why
they waited this
They plan to seek

over of hearing on
Organiza on
epared to proceed
and le
over and don
nal
we d want
set
for
His clients include
him we d
wasn
morning
com
that
wrote
com
said their
told
this
dorsayindianlaw
Organizaiton
call
doj state or us
potter
High
Wednesday
He
mailto
justicelawyers
Importance
sheila
21 2014 10 06 AM
VON TER STEGGE
National
Potter Sheila
for a conference
available
April
Coie
Subject
just
10 14 AM
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
Perkins
at
Are people
From
To
2014
on Wednesday
replies
ate in the
game
to intervene
And
take on interven on
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Katharine
Friday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter

18 2014 2 46 PM
katevts
multco
us
April
Perriguey
Sheila
Williams
mary h
Subject
Re
Lea Ann Easton

williams
msn com
Johnson
Thomas R
Jennifer
Middleton
Jr
Perkins
JMiddleton
Coie
Isaak
Misha
justicelawyers
com
Perkins
Coie
Joyce Anna
Mary
Works
On
for
me
Thanks
Friday April 18
2014
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
wrote
Red pen
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Oregon 97205
Portland
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
Street
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
18 2014
at
Justice
PM
12 14
Potter
Sheila
First draft
Portland
Civil
in
potter
sheila
please have
doj state or us
at
Getting
it
wrote
will
be
in
a bit
Ms Pew
m writing
and
like
have a
lot
ask whether
the Judge
18 2014
LEaston
We
are wondering
at
of lawyers and the briefing
We
most helpful to the Court
On Apr
we
all
can
was
lengthy
certainly
and
would
we
like
would
that
We
Judge
met
this
week
to discuss
McShane would
particularly
like
We
to focus argume nt on those areas that will be
but
we
also wanted to
might have some thoughts on how argument would be most useful for him
11 28
AM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Potter Sheila
To
Johnson
Cc
Katharine
Mary
Thomas
Williams
JMiddleton
Subject
Re
April 18
Friday
Jr
doj state or us
AM
2014 11 26
Perkins Coie
VON TER STEGGE
Isaak
mary h williams
msn com
justicelawyers
com
Misha
Perkins Coie
mailto mary h
mailto JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton
williams
justicelawyers
msn com
com

Jennifer Middleton
think
idea to send
terrible
Sheila
worth asking
it
Deputy
what
it
to the group
and you can
me why
tell
it
d be a
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On Apr
18 2014
agree with Sheila
Justice
11 19
at
mailto TRJohnson
at
I draft
it
if
AM
Johnson
perkinscoie
ll
com
defer to others
3e
Thomas
Perkins Coie
Jr
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
wrote
but because
ma
bit reticent
for us to ask this
all
Thomas
1120
Johnson
Couch
Perkins Coie
LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
503 727 2176
CELL
FAX
97209 4128
503 914 8918
503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto trjohnson
perkinscoie
com
Original Message
From
Potter Sheila
mailto sheila p
Kate von Ter Stegge

501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138

katevts
Suite
500
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
law
Multnomah
Portland
If
may
contain
NOTICE
information that
please advise
attachments
me
it
is
privileged
from your system
confidential

keep the contents
or
or
otherwise
otherwise
confidential
that
you have received
and imm
ediately
this
delete
under applicable
e mail in error
the message and any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
4 21 2014 1 28 33
Subject
are you available
Lake James
Sheila
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
H
PM
for
conf
call
at
1 30
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton

agoad
Potter
aclu org
Tom
Sent
4 21 2014 3 01 27
Subject
NOM
Sheila
Johnson
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Misha Isaak
Kevin Diaz
Jennifer
kdiaz
Middleton
aclu or org
kdiaz
aclur oorg
PM
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April
21 2014
CONTACT
Elizabeth
Ray
or Matille
Thebolt
703 683 5004
National
We
Organization
Marriage Files Motion Seeking to Intervene in Oregon Marriage
for
are acting to protect the interests of our members
officials
and those
voters
the wedding
in
who
industry
in
will
Oregon who support
traditional
be
by
impacted
directly
marriage
this collusive
Case
including
government
which the state has
lawsuit
refused to defend
Brian Brown
DC
Washington
intervene
in
The National Organization
the case challenging
NOM
one man and one woman

professionals in
the wedding
the intervention
filing
situation
that
Marriage in Oregon
is
collusive
worthy
professionals in
the wedding
state
to
federal
court
district
in
lawsuit
2004 and
speak on behalf
voters
All
of
of
a motion
file
members
its
in
Oregon
in federal court later
which
a County Clerk
include
tothe state
today seeking
marriage as the union of
constitution
The group
said
General refused to mount a defense of the amendment
herduty to defend the marriage state
has switched
in effect
Brian Brown
said
sides
our members including
these individuals have a
We
of
several
the outcome
interest in
particularized
president
Clerk in the state
County
of
the
are working to protect the interests of our members who support true
has the state joining with the
plaintiffs
against
the interests of our members and the
its
will
Director
of
publicly identify
2009
and
amendment
reported
other
defining
including
Foundation
threats
against
to
Justice
of traditional
businesses
published
supporters
report
of
Eastman
also said that
man and
that
defend
in
being boycotted
news
reports
Clarence
in
argument in
for oral
Thomas
added
like
that
them
to
s members in
and
industry
voters
of reprisal
NOM
should be able to intervene
The Claremont
Institute
at
NOM
the wedding
those interests themselves
said
John Eastman
Eastman a noted
even the simple
reprisals
This
is
fact of
obvious
to
NOM
constitutional
having to
and
Oregon and elsewhere
The
Price
of
Prop 8
the 2008 constitutional
marriage as the union of one
is
scheduled
today that
filing
professionals
marriage would subject
effectively
detailing
numerous
amendment
man and one woman
an Oregon baker whose business has
food business
them
the law themselves due to legitimate
Supreme Court
from what s occurred
the Heritage
boycotts
US
is
currently
the federal court in

the
certify
the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
themselves as supporters
documented
tell
law has a strong premise that organizations
that federal
law scholar and former clerk to
natural
chairman John Eastman
upholding
marriage
defining
23
who must perform marriages and
clerk
reason
amendment
rd
April
the interests of their members who cannot adequately
Chairman and
In
in
their interests in
precisely for this
defend
well
and
that
will
General has abandoned
the Attorney
Eugene on Wednesday
a county
include
who cannot defend
is
yet
we
industry
it
where the public s interests are unrepresented
defense
Measure 36 the
s lead legal counsel
Oregon
It
of
said
s voters
The challenge
NOM
NOM
the 2004 state ballot measure that defined
Attorney
state
are not being represented
marriage against a collusive
of
who supported the 2004 amendment
voters
lawsuit
organization
yet their interests
litigation
and
amendment enacted overwhelmingly
As a membership
Marriage
seeks to protect the interests of
industry
became necessary when the
creates
constitutional
NOM
for
the constitutionality
president
fear
to
NOM
been
Since then
shuttered
examples
in
California
many
and
further
most
of
harassment
nearly identical
to
Oregon s
examples have been widely
recently
a woman whose new
over her support for true marriage
over the weekend that Judge Michael
the two are raising a child together
raise serious ethical
McShane
questions
about
is
in
a
long term relationship with another
whether the judge should continue
to
hear
the case
These recent news

amendment
matter
it
is
reports
suggest that Judge McShane
raising troubling
questions
wrong that a challenge
constitutional
to
aggressively defend
wedding
ceremonies
with Brian
chairman of the National Organization

or Matille
you would
NOM
rather
not receive
2760 Eisenhower
Ave
future
communications
4th Floor
Aexandria
But
said
If
regardless
in federal
interests
of
and the
particular
is
challenging
the marriage
what judge eventually
hears this
no meaningful defense
court with
our motion to intervene
mthebolt
Organization
20006
from
NOM
VA 22314
of the National
please contact
for
let
Marriage
Brian Brown
clicking
com
interests of
granted
we
here
or
for Marriage
x130
at
president
by any candidate
68A 405 1
us know by
United States
Organization
Elizabeth Ray
crcpublicrelations
not authorized
New
If
Their
a defense
president
Marriage
x143
DC
300 Washington
deserve
Brown
for
Thebolt
Paid for by The National

Suite
Eastman
voters
men
the same position as thetwo gay
of
those involved
intend
to
fully
the
in
and
amendment
the state constitutional
To schedule an interview
in
Oregon s marriage law would proceed
amendment adopted overwhelmingly by
performing or celebrating
is
about his impartiality
eray
or John Eastman
crcpublicrelations
703 683 5004

2029 K Street
candidate
NW
s committee
com
From
Potter
To
Tom
Sent
4 21 2014 4 53 23
Subject
Noodling
If
one
of
talking
we
it
with Anna
if
made
we
me want
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
of
Phone
971
Phone
Tu
to
and
are
give
that
would
to
them
They
Trial Counsel
F
503
Justice
947
673
5026
4688
love
press release
beat
Perkins Coie
Portland
Salem
jurisdiction
me a call
Potter
Th
Misha Isaak
PM
Mary
That
to
Perkins Coie
around with intervention
you has a chance
ideas
re wrong
that
Sheila
Johnson
made
don
ideas
d be great
bounce
me want
get
to
one
to
win
off
Nothing
you
set stuff
this
971
urgent
and
have
on fire
673
5026
Have
been
you tell
me why
but
than
more
From
christy
CC
mary h
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
agoad
aclu org
4 21 2014 10 07 00
Subject
Geiger et al
Ms
In
Weller and
response
parties
Perkins Coie
com
pew
charlene
msn com
williams
Jennifer
Sent
No 13
Jr
ord uscourts gov
weller
Sheila
Potter
Thomas
Johnson
To
Kevin Diaz
Middleton
ord uscourts
Joyce Anna
kdiaz
JMiddleton
gov
multco us
katevts
Amanda Goad
justicelawyers
com Isaak
aclu or org
lake
law
works
com
LGBT
Misha
Perkins
Coie
PM
v Kitzhaber
Case No
et al
13 cv 01834
MC
Rummell
et al
Kitzhaber
Case
et al
cv 02256
Ms Pew
to the court s minute order
docket number 83
respectfully submit the following
Geiger and 80
Rummell
on behalf
of the
information
Party Attendees
State of Oregon
Sheila Potter
Attorney
Mary Williams
Anna Joyce
Attorney
Liani
Multnomah
Attorney
Attorney
General Ellen Rosenblum
Reeves
General Counsel
Kate von Ter Stegge
Hank
Stern
Lea Ann Easton
Bill
Robert Duehmig
Jack Griesar son
Dominic Griesar
Kate Brown
Jacqueline
Rummell
Griesar
of Bill
and Robert
Secretary
of State
of State Staff
Plaintiffs
Jennifer Middleton
Tom Johnson
Attorney
Amanda Goad
Kevin Diaz
Paul Rummell
Benjamin West
Attorney
Attorney
Party
Party
Lisa Chickadonz
Christine
Jeana
Party
Tanner
Frazzini
Vanessa Usui
Dave Fidanque
Party
Party Representative
ACLU
Argument Organization and
As
to the court s request
of
be doing the arguments
will
go
Fund Executive
Director
Fund Chair
Oregon Executive
Director
Division
for information regarding
will
followed
Attorney
Attorney
first
and Robert
of Bill
son
Oregon Secretary
Misha Isaak
Party
Sowell
Attorney
Party
Lake Perriguey Attorney
Oregon
Plaintiffs
of
Attorney
Governor
County
Geiger
for
for the various
by the Rummell
parties
Plaintiffs
the order of argument
the current expectation
the State
and Multnomah
and
is
that
County
the attorneys
the Geiger
The
who
Plaintiffs
parties
envision
that the court will address the substantive
issues
before addressing issues relating to
first
any possible stay
For the Geiger
Lake Perriguey
Plaintiffs
will
handle substantive
For the Rummell
handle the stay issues raised in the court s minute order

handle substantive
Mary Williams
the State
Stegge
to the extent
would
like
Wednesday
On
will
will
handle argument
handle the bulk of the argument
Ann Easton
Plaintiff
will
Misha Isaak
relating to sta y issues
For Multnomah
County
will
For
Kate von Ter
handle the argument
will
Obviously
court
issues and Jennifer Middleton
issues and Lea
other papers are
some advance
prior to the
these designations could change
with the court
notice of any changes
in these
designations
we
will
If
the
update them on
argument
behalf of the parties thank you very
by allowing them
filed
to enter the courtroom
much
in
for
accommodating
advance
the parties and their
representatives
of the hearing
Best regards
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
IRS CIRCULAR
perkinscoie
com
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Mary Williams
Sent
4 21 2014 11 07 35
Subject
FW
Sheila
mary h
Geiger et
al
msn com
williams
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie
PM
v Kitzhaber
et
US
al
District
Court
Oregon
Docket
No 6
cv 01834
13
MC
Notice of Filing
Attachments
Mary
and
you don
image001
Misha
Not sure why
Timely
From
Roger
Sent
Monday
Harris
charlene
pew
Cc
lake
works
law
TRJohnson
Subject
mailto
April 21
To
com
perkinscoie
01834
roger
2014
make
it
onto
his distribution
list
but
looks
like
MC
al
dorsayindianlaw
Joyce
Anna
Kitzhaber
Notice
com
gov
leaston
com
hbclawyers
11 05 PM
ord uscourts
Geiger et
6 13 cv
of
Potter
et
com
Sheila
al
katevts
US District
com
multco us
Court
Oregon
Docket
No
Filing
Pew
This
e mail is
5 1 d
that
memorandum
referenced
We
you don
11pm
Ms
jpg
a follow
The
up to
National
declaration
matter
are asking
my earlier voice
Organization
and
Please
responsive
advise
for an expedited
pleadings
Judge
review
of
April 22nd
we
summary judgment
hearing
and
the
briefing
call
Roger
HBC
Please
Harris
Logo
Color
Attorneys
and
1475
503
968
me if
you have
the
will
be filing
time for the
as an intervenor
in the
above
a motion to
intervenor
postpone
and
the
the
scheduled
parties to
complete
P C
sig
Counselors
F 503
968
2003
D 503
596
2910
hbclawyers
com professionals
vCard http
www
hbclawyers
com vcard
Harris
400
Oswego
hbclawyers
roger
Roger
Meadows
Road
Suite
Lake
OR
97035
com http
www
hbclawyers
com
harris
K VCFC
in 20Express
SW
LR
with supporting
any questions
www
5000
appear
as required under
motion
Bio http
Add
to
notice
a motion
McShane
Additionally on Tuesday
extend
mail providing
for Marriage has filed
Users
Roger
20Harris
Documents
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
4 21 2014 11 08 49
Subject
RE
Geiger et
Coie
Mary Williams
al
mary h
msn com
williams
PM
v Kitzhaber
et
US
al
Court
District
Oregon
No 6
Docket
13
MC
cv 01834
Notice of Filing
Ugh
Thanks
Misha Isaak
503 727 2086
From
Sent
Potter
Sheila
Monday
April
mailto sheila
FW
Subject
potter
doj state or us
21 2014 11 08 PM
Geiger et
Mary and Misha Not
msn com
williams
al
Kitzhaber
why
sure
et
Isaak
US
al
you don
Misha
District
make
Perkins
Coie
Oregon
Court
Docket No
list
PHONE
To
Perkins Coie LLP
onto his distribution
it
6 13 cv 01834 MC
but
you don
like
looks
Notice of Filing
11pm Timely
From
Sent
Roger Harris
Monday
To
charlene
Cc
lake
pew
Subject
roger
com
hbclawyers
21 2014 11 05 PM
ord uscourts gov
law works
Joyce Anna
mailto
April
Potter
com
Sheila
Geiger et
al
com
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
Kitzhaber
jmiddleton
com
justicelawyers
TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
multco us
katevts
et
US
al
District
Oregon
Court
Docket No
6 13
01834 MC
cv
Notice of Filing
Ms Pew
This e mail
is
follow
up
to
my
earlier voice
Organization for Marriage has
National
responsive
pleadings
to
filed
mail providing
a motion
appear as an intervenor
notice as required under
with supporting
in the
LR 5 1 d
memorandum
above referenced
that
The
declaration and
matter Please advise
Judge
McShane
We
are asking
for
an expedited
on Tuesday
Additionally
April
review of the motion
22
nd
we
will
be
filing
a motion
judgment hearing and extend the time for the intervenor
me
postpone the scheduled
and the
parties to complete
summary
riefing
Please
call
if
Roger
Attorneys
Harris
SW
P C
and Counselors
T 503 968 1475

5000
to
Suite
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
D 503
F 503 968 2003
Meadows Road
may
596 2910
If
e mail in error
please advise
OR
com
hbclawyers
com
Bio hbclawyers
com
vCard hbclawyers com
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
hbclawyers
400 Lake Oswego
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
the message
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
4 21 2014 11 08 49
Subject
RE
Geiger et
Coie
Mary Williams
al
mary h
msn com
williams
PM
v Kitzhaber
et
US
al
Court
District
Oregon
No 6
Docket
13
MC
cv 01834
Notice of Filing
Ugh
Thanks
Misha Isaak
503 727 2086
From
Sent
Potter
Sheila
Monday
April
mailto sheila
FW
Subject
potter
doj state or us
21 2014 11 08 PM
Geiger et
Mary and Misha Not
msn com
williams
al
Kitzhaber
why
sure
et
Isaak
US
al
you don
Misha
District
make
Perkins
Coie
Oregon
Court
Docket No
list
PHONE
To
Perkins Coie LLP
onto his distribution
it
6 13 cv 01834 MC
but
you don
like
looks
Notice of Filing
11pm Timely
From
Sent
Roger Harris
Monday
To
charlene
Cc
lake
pew
Subject
roger
com
hbclawyers
21 2014 11 05 PM
ord uscourts gov
law works
Joyce Anna
mailto
April
Potter
com
Sheila
Geiger et
al
com
dorsayindianlaw
leaston
Kitzhaber
jmiddleton
com
justicelawyers
TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
multco us
katevts
et
US
al
District
Oregon
Court
Docket No
6 13
01834 MC
cv
Notice of Filing
Ms Pew
This e mail
is
follow
up
to
my
earlier voice
Organization for Marriage has
National
responsive
pleadings
to
filed
mail providing
a motion
appear as an intervenor
notice as required under
with supporting
in the
LR 5 1 d
memorandum
above referenced
that
The
declaration and
matter Please advise
Judge
McShane
We
are asking
for
an expedited
on Tuesday
Additionally
April
review of the motion
22
nd
we
will
be
filing
a motion
judgment hearing and extend the time for the intervenor
me
postpone the scheduled
and the
parties to complete
summary
riefing
Please
call
if
Roger
Attorneys
Harris
SW
P C
and Counselors
T 503 968 1475

5000
to
Suite
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
D 503
F 503 968 2003
Meadows Road
may
596 2910
If
e mail in error
please advise
OR
com
hbclawyers
com
Bio hbclawyers
com
vCard hbclawyers com
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
hbclawyers
400 Lake Oswego
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
the message
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Mary Williams
Sheila
Perkins
mary h
Sent
4 21 2014 11 49 59
Subject
County clerk
Remains
county
NOM
unnamed
clerk
s Oregon
NOM
maintaining
here
is
members are a county
particularized harm
or any harm
discrimination
msn com
Joyce Anna
Misha Isaak
Tom
Johnson
Perkins Coie
PM
president dude
literally
williams
Coie
It
is
the
just testifying that

extent
clerk
much
s not
No
of
the
factual
allegation
less injury to
clear
from the
that
among
NOM
record
the
s Oregon
on the
clerk
that
clerk
a
Among
anticipates
a legally protected
declaration
members is
county
that
interest
the
in
unnamed
even aware he s being used as a basis for asserting jurisdiction

We re just to
Brown s word for it
that there even is a county clerk among his Oregon members
take
clerk
Brian
is
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton

Joyce Anna
Sent
4 22 2014 8 48 43
Subject
Intervention
Having read the
NOM
is
brief
not contending
Of course
that
As
supposed
be the intervener
FRCP
to whether
voted for 36
retaliation
how
he
1st
wish to marry
24a otherwise
interest
that
SW
Portland
exists
interest
is
Madison
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
is
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
would
Sheila
Mary
Williams
NOM
Its
FRCP
24 a
application
in fact
is
assuming
that
the application
based on the claim that
has such litigants
is
timely
who
has members
it
they could seek a John Doe
speculative
is
what
insert
we
Civil
Justice
regardless of Justice
call
the electoral
Thomas unsupported
process
That means
the federal judiciary into that el
that
grousing
Michael
if
And
let
ectoral process
met with regard to the supposed wedding service planner and members who
have an
interest
is
after
Hollingsworth
personal to them and
for a private business
protectable
Perriguey
Oregon
entirely
then that interest
Law Works LLC

1906
if
not as a trump to deny the plaintiffs
as such
is
they possibly could
to them individually
Lake James
disposable under
Okay
retaliation
effectively
based on their 1stA interests
addressed
Potter
to ward against supposed retaliation
that
protectable
Middleton
Jennifer
AM
readily
themselves
as to the supposed county clerk
NOM
me
Johnson
VON TER STEGGE
has the right to intervene
it
to be litigants
are too scared

designation
seems to
it
Tom
Misha Isaak
Katharine
me
protectable
their constitutionally
or individual
as an exception
if
eludes
If
is
the claim
is
protectable
pr otected interest
that
the right
only with respect
In other words
not to have to serve those same sex partners
to the same sex partners
own
protected
is
interest
if
who
and can be
From
Potter
To
Tom
Sheila
Johnson
Middleton
mary h
H
Perkins Coie
JMiddleton
williams
Sent
4 22 2014 10 31 31
Subject
Conference
We
ve
to
a final
been
conference
talking
judgment
call
over
here
without
this morning
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
Chief Trial Counsel

158
12th
Salem
503
Potter
947
Street
OR
97301
4700
NE
call
msn com
this
about
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Perkins Coie
com
Joyce Anna
Lea Ann Easton
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Lake
Perriguey
Jennifer
Mary Williams
katevts
multco us
AM
morning
the
best
interlocutory
so that
we
way
appeal
can
to
get
this through
mucking
coordinate
things
up
to
argument
Do
y all
our efforts with each
tomorrow
have
other
and
time for a
H
VON TER STEGGE
From
Potter
To
Katharine
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
4 22 2014 10 35 51
Subject
Geiger
do you have
around
some dude
Sheila
Salem
msn com
silliness
or easily
except that of course
lady on their mailing
ndable
that a county
clerk s
ocial
who
it
s not
anyone
acting in his or her
happens to go to work as a county
interests
They
ocial
can only be
re waiving that county
capacity
clerk during the
it
s just
day
Potter
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
158 12
multco us
williams
AM
clerk
authority on hand
like crazy
Deputy Chief
th
county
katevts
mary h
by county counsel or some other counsel appointed by the county
represented
clerk
Mary Williams
list
Kate
Sheila
NE
Street
OR
of Justice
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
Tom
Sheila
Johnson
Joyce Anna
4 22 2014 10 39 34
Subject
Re
am
available
morning
all
Conference
until
mary h
Jennifer
Middleton
msn com
williams
JMiddleton
Katharine
justicelawyers
com
VON TER STEGGE
multco us
katevts
Sent
Lea Ann Easton
Misha Isaak
Mary Williams
call
AM
this
morning
1 30
Lake
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
We
22 2014
Civil
at
Justice
10 31
AM
Potter Sheila
ve been talking over here about the best
judgment without
morning so
Sheila
interlocutory appeal
we
that
Trial
Salem
mucking
eorts
doj state or us
wrote
to get this through to argument tomorrow

things
up
Do
all
have time for a
and to a nal
conference
call
this
with each other
Counsel
Oregon Department
158 12
our
way
potter
Potter
Deputy Chief
th
can coordinate
sheila
NE
Street
OR
of Justice
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
VON TER STEGGE

H
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
4 22 2014 10 45 24
Subject
Re
Sheila
Geiger
Mary Williams
mary h
williams
msn com
AM
county clerk silliness
Sheila
Is
The answer might be
the Clackamas Clerk
it
so knowing
gets weird quickly
in
the personnel rules for the specif ic county
make
the specific County would
it
easier
County governance
to sort out
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
503 988 3377
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
Apr 22 2014
do you have
Kate
around
some dude
Sheila
Deputy
at
10 35
AM
Potter
authority on hand
Sheila
or easily
sheila
ndable
potter
doj state or us
that a county
clerk s
wrote
ocial
represented
like crazy
who
it
s not
anyone
interests
They
ocial
can only be
capacity
clerk during the
it
s just
day
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
th
158 12
Salem
Multnomah
Portland
multco us
Tue
clerk
500
list
501
Street
OR
Justice
NE
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Potter
Sheila
JMiddleton
H Tom
Sent
4 22 2014 10 46 24
Subject
Re
am
free
was
Conference
call
Joyce Anna
Jennifer
Mary Williams
Middleton
mary h
williams
msn com
AM
this
on running an errand
planning
Lea Ann Easton
Misha Isaak
com
morning
at
noon
but I can do
it
after
lunch
and don
have anything scheduled
pm
until
Johnson
justicelawyers
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
501
503 988 3138
katevts
500
Suite
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
County Attorney
OR
97214
fax
multco us
On Tue Apr 22
I am available all
2014
at
10 39
morning
until
AM
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
wrote
1 30
Lake
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
We
22 2014
Civil
at
Justice
10 31
AM
Potter Sheila
judgment without
morning so
Sheila
Deputy
that
we
can coordinate
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
th
158 12
Salem
Street
OR
NE
97301
503 947 4700
Justice
our
sheila
way
mucking
eorts
potter
doj state or us
wrote

things
up
Do
with each other
all
have time for a
and to a nal
conference
call
this
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
H
VON TER STEGGE
Sheila
Potter
To
Katharine
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
4 22 2014 10 47 11
Subject
RE
They
won
say The
members
evidence
From
Sent
Mary Williams
Geiger
NOM
county clerk
national
mary h
msn com
williams
AM
silliness
guy led
saying that he s ascertained that one of his
a declaration
list
From
someone on an e mail mailing
as far as
can
tell
is
a county clerkin Oregon
That s
all
the
they put in
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Tuesday
April
To
Potter
Cc
Joyce Anna
Re
multco
mailto katevts
us
2014 10 45 AM
Sheila
Subject
22
Geiger
county
clerk
msn com
williams
silliness
Sheila
Is
The answer might be
the Clackamas Clerk
it
so knowing
gets weird quickly
in
the personnel rules for the specif ic county
make
the specific County would
it
easier
County governance
to sort out
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
503 988 3377
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
Apr 22 2014
do you have
Kate
around
some dude
Sheila
Deputy
at
10 35
AM
Potter
authority on hand
Sheila
or easily
sheila
ndable
potter
doj state or us
that a county
clerk s
wrote
ocial
represented
like crazy
who
it
s not
anyone
interests
They
ocial
can only be
capacity
clerk during the
it
s just
day
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
th
158 12
Salem
Multnomah
Portland
multco us
Tue
clerk
500
list
501
Street
OR
Justice
NE
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
R Jr Perkins Coie
VON TER STEGGE Lake Perriguey
Sheila H Isaak Misha
Perkins Coie
Lea
Thomas
Johnson
To
Katharine
CC
Potter
JMiddleton
Sent
4 22 2014 10 55 48
Subject
RE
can participate
in
Couch
Conference
Joyce Anna
Ann Easton
Mary Williams
Jennifer
Middleton
mary h
msn com
williams
AM
this
morning
mailto katevts
multco
call
call
Thomas R Johnson
1120
com
justicelawyers
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Tuesday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Subject
am
Sheila
Johnson
Re
Conference
was
Thomas R
com
justicelawyers
free
call
Jr
Perkins
Joyce Anna
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
williams
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Jennifer
Middleton
msn com
morning
this
planning
Coie
at
noon
but I can do
it
after
lunch
and don
pm
until
us
2014 10 46 AM
22
April
Perriguey
JMiddleton
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Sent
com
perkinscoie
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
501
503 988 3138
katevts
On
I
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
County Attorney
OR
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 22 2014
Tue
am
available
all
at
10 39
morning
until
AM
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
wrote
1 30
Lake
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
We
22 2014
Civil
at
Justice
10 31
AM
Potter Sheila
sheila
way
potter
doj state or us
wrote
and to a nal
judgment without
morning so
Sheila
Deputy
that
we
can coordinate
our
mucking
eorts
things
Do
up
all
have time for a
conference
call
this
with each other
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
th
158 12
Street
OR
Salem
Justice
NE
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Jennifer
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
4 22 2014 11 00 36
Subject
RE
Middleton
PerkinsCoie
am
too
available
Jennifer
Isaak
Conference
AM
call
this
morning
PC
Schaller
Street
Eugene
OR 97401
1050
Ste
683 2506
jmiddleton
com
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
may
This message
Thomas R
Johnson
I
VON TER STEGGE Thomas R Jr Perkins Coie Johnson

H Lea Ann Easton Mary Williams mary h williams msn com Misha
Middleton
975 Oak
If
Sheila
now and 12 15
between
Johnson Johnson
541
Katharine
Potter
can participate
in
Couch
Perkins
Coie
confidential
it
and
TRJohnson
communications
notify
protected
the sender
perkinscoie
com
4 22 2014
10
55 AM
call
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Jr
contain
please delete
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
Lake
Cc
Potter
Subject
am
until
multco
mailto katevts
us
2014 10 46 AM
22
April
Perriguey
Sheila
JMiddleton
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Tuesday
To
com
perkinscoie
Johnson
Re
free
Conference
was
Thomas R
com
justicelawyers
call
Jr
Joyce Anna
this
Perkins
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
williams
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
at
noon
but I can do
it
after
lunch
and don
pm
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
I
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
Apr 22 2014
available
all
at
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
10 39
morning
Lake
1906
OR
multco us multco us
Tue
am
Suite
Madison
Street
until
Jennifer
Middleton
msn com
morning
planning
Coie
AM
1 30
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
wrote
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
We
22 2014
Civil
at
Justice
10 31
AM
Potter Sheila
way
judgment without
morning so
Sheila
Deputy
that
we
can coordinate
our
potter
sheila
mucking
eorts
wrote
doj state or us
and to a nal

things
Do
up
all
have time for a
conference
call
this
with each other
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
th
158 12
Street
OR
Salem
Justice
NE
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Jennifer
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
4 22 2014 11 00 36
Subject
RE
Middleton
PerkinsCoie
am
too
available
Jennifer
Isaak
Conference
AM
call
this
morning
PC
Schaller
Street
Eugene
OR 97401
1050
Ste
683 2506
jmiddleton
com
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
may
This message
Thomas R
Johnson
I
VON TER STEGGE Thomas R Jr Perkins Coie Johnson

H Lea Ann Easton Mary Williams mary h williams msn com Misha
Middleton
975 Oak
If
Sheila
now and 12 15
between
Johnson Johnson
541
Katharine
Potter
can participate
in
Couch
Perkins
Coie
confidential
it
and
TRJohnson
communications
notify
protected
the sender
perkinscoie
com
4 22 2014
10
55 AM
call
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Jr
contain
please delete
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
Lake
Cc
Potter
Subject
am
until
multco
mailto katevts
us
2014 10 46 AM
22
April
Perriguey
Sheila
JMiddleton
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Tuesday
To
com
perkinscoie
Johnson
Re
free
Conference
was
Thomas R
com
justicelawyers
call
Jr
Joyce Anna
this
Perkins
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
williams
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
at
noon
but I can do
it
after
lunch
and don
pm
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
I
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
Apr 22 2014
available
all
at
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
10 39
morning
Lake
1906
OR
multco us multco us
Tue
am
Suite
Madison
Street
until
Jennifer
Middleton
msn com
morning
planning
Coie
AM
1 30
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
wrote
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
We
22 2014
Civil
at
Justice
10 31
AM
Potter Sheila
way
judgment without
morning so
Sheila
Deputy
that
we
can coordinate
our
potter
sheila
mucking
eorts
wrote
doj state or us
and to a nal

things
Do
up
all
have time for a
conference
call
this
with each other
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
th
158 12
Street
OR
Salem
Justice
NE
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Jennifer
CC
Potter
4 22 2014 11 02 07
Subject
RE
for
to me
When
call
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Conference
indicated
just
727 2176
Couch
Sheila
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
Mary Williams
mary h
williams
msn com Isaak
Perkins Coie
Sent
Lea Ann
Perkins Coie
Jr
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
Joyce Anna
Misha
Thomas
Johnson
To
AM
call
this
morning
that she is available
this
morning
can
offer
my
call
in
number 888 857 7291 and 503
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
PHONE 503 727 2176

CELL 503 914 8918
FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
perkinscoie
Middleton
Jennifer
Tuesday
Lake
Cc
Joyce Anna
Perriguey
am
RE
Jennifer
Katharine
Potter
too
Street
VON TER STEGGE Johnson Thomas R Jr Perkins Coie

H Lea Ann Easton Mary Williams mary h williams msn com
this
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
morning
now and 12 15
PC
Schaller
1050
Ste
OR 97401
privilege
If
NOTICE
Thomas R
Johnson
in
contain
Couch
Jr
Perkins
Coie
communications
confidential
TRJohnson
it
and
perkinscoie
notify
com
protected
the sender
4 22 2014 10 55 AM
call
Thomas R Johnson
may
This message
can participate
com
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
1120
com
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
Middleton
Eugene
541
call
between
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
Sheila
Conference
available
JMiddleton
mailto
22 2014 11 01 AM
April
To
Subject
com
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
CELL 503 914 8918

FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL
From
Sent
trjohnson
perkinscoie
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Tuesday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
April
mailto katevts
multco us
22 2014 10 46 AM
Perriguey
Sheila
JMiddleton
Subject
com
Re
Johnson
justicelawyers
Conference
Thomas R
com
call
this
Jr
Joyce Anna
morning
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
williams
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
msn com
Jennifer
Middleton
am
free
was
scheduled
until
planning
at
noon
but I can do
it
after
lunch
and don
have anything
pm
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
I
500
Suite
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us multco us
Apr 22 2014
Tue
am
available
at
AM
10 39
morning
all
until
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
wrote
1 30
Lake
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr 22
We
2014
Civil
at
Justice
10 31
AM
Potter Sheila
sheila
way
judgment without
morning so
Sheila
Deputy
we
that
can coordinate
our
mucking
eorts
wrote
doj state or us
and to a nal

things
up
Do
all
have time
for a conference
call
this
with each other
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department
158 12
potter
th
Street
OR
Salem
of Justice
NE
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
me
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
230 DISCLOSURE
or written
privileged
ise that
the contents conf
you have received
idential
this
and immediately

intended
is
delete the message
IRS CIRCULAR
NOTICE
otherwise
with
Treasury Department
and IRS
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
to
that
may be imposed on
NOTICE
advise
This communication
or
may
matter addressed
contain
herein
or
privileged or other
Revenue Code
confidential
contents
Thank you
or
promoting
ii
any attachments
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments
without
it
in error
please
the
VON TER STEGGE

R Jr Perkins
From
Katharine
To
Johnson
Thomas
CC
Jennifer
Middleton
mary h
williams
Sent
4 22 2014 11 04 20
Subject
Re
Conference
Coie
msn com
Isaak
Misha
Potter
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
Mary
Williams
Perkins Coie
AM
call
this
morning
Let s do the call at 11 15
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
500
OR
503 988 3377
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Apr 22 2014
Tue
Lea Ann
for
call
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
11 02
me
When
indicated
just
727 2176
at
to
AM
Johnson
Thomas
that she is available
this
Jr
Perkins Coie
morning
can
offer
TRJohnson
my
call
in
perkinscoie
com
wrote
number888 857 7291 and 503
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
CELL 503 914 8918

FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
perkinscoie
Middleton
Jennifer
Tuesday
Lake
Cc
Joyce Anna
Perriguey
am
RE
Jennifer
too
Eugene
Sheila
call
between
Street
Schaller
Ste
OR 97401
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
1050
VON TER STEGGE Johnson Thomas R Jr Perkins Coie

H Lea Ann Easton Mary Williams mary h williams msn com
this
morning
now and 12 15
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
Katharine
Potter
Conference
available
mailto
22 2014 11 01 AM
April
To
Subject
com
PC
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
541
683 2506
jmiddleton
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
NOTICE
Thomas R
can participate
in
contain
Couch
Jr
Perkins
Coie
communications
confidential
TRJohnson
it
and
perkinscoie
notify
com
protected
the sender
4 22 2014 10 55 AM
call
Thomas R Johnson
1120
may
This message
If
Johnson
com
justicelawyers
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
CELL 503 914 8918

FAX 503 346 2176
E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
perkinscoie
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Subject
am
April
multco us
mailto katevts
22 2014 10 46 AM
Perriguey
scheduled
Johnson
Conference
was
until
call
Jr
Joyce Anna
this
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
williams
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
at
noon
but I can do
it
after
lunch
and don
pm
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
I
Lake
500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us multco us
Tue
am
Suite
Apr 22 2014
available
all
at
10 39
morning
until
Jennifer
msn com
morning
planning
Thomas R
com
justicelawyers
Re
free
Sheila
JMiddleton
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Tuesday
com
AM
1 30
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
wrote
have anything
Middleton
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr 22
We
2014
Civil
at
Justice
10 31
AM
Potter Sheila
sheila
way
judgment without
morning so
Sheila
Deputy
we
that
Salem
can coordinate
our
mucking
eorts
doj state or us
wrote

things
up
Do
all
have time
and to a nal
for a conference
call
this
with each other
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department
158 12
potter
th
Street
OR
of Justice
NE
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
is
privileged
delete the message
me
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
ise that
idential
you have received

and immediately
this
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
or written
penalties
that
to
may be imposed on
advise
This communication
with
may
matter addressed
contain
herein
or
privileged or other
Thank you
taxpayer
Revenue Code
or
regulations
including
for
the purpose
promoting
ii
we
inform you that
any attachments
of
is
not
avoiding
any attachments
confidential
contents
or
and IRS
Treasury Department
NOTICE
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments
without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
Middleton
mary h
H Tom
4 22 2014 11 04 34
Subject
RE
in
call
Conference
this
Perkins
justicelawyers
msn com
williams
Sent
can participate
Johnson
JMiddleton
Coie
com
Katharine
Misha Isaak
Joyce Anna
Lake
Perkins Coie
Perriguey
Jennifer
Mary Williams
VON TER STEGGE
katevts
multco us
AM
call
morning
this
morning
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Tom
Subject
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
2014 10 32 AM
22
Perkins
justicelawyers
multco
katevts
April
Johnson
JMiddleton
We
Sheila
Tuesday
Coie
Misha Isaak
com
Joyce Anna
Perkins
call
this
judgment without
we
that
Trial
Salem
Jennifer
Katharine
Middleton
VON TER STEGGE
can coordinate
our
way
mucking
eorts

things
up
Do
all
have time for a
and to a nal
conference
call
this
with each other
Counsel
Oregon Department
158 12
Perriguey
msn com
Potter
Deputy Chief
th
Lake
williams
morning
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
us
Conference
morning so
Coie
NE
Street
OR
of Justice
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Joyce Anna
To
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
CC
Jennifer
Middleton
mary h
williams
msn com
Sent
4 22 2014 11 05 05
Subject
RE
Works
Anna
Conference
Thomas
Johnson
Lake Perriguey
Potter
Isaak
Sheila
Misha
R Jr Perkins Coie
Williams
Perkins Coie
AM
this
call
morning
for me
Joyce
Solicitor General
Oregon
Department
From
Katharine
Sent
Tuesday
of
Justice
VON TER
To
Johnson
Thomas
Cc
Jennifer
Middleton
Williams
Subject
Let
Re
von
call
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
Tue
988
2014
just indicated
857
7291
R
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
888
503
Joyce
Isaak
Anna
Misha
Potter
Perkins
Sheila
Lea
Ann
Easton
Mary
my call
in number
Coie
this morning
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
Attorney
97214
11 02 AM
Johnson
Thomas
com mailto
TRJohnson
to
she is
857
County
fax
me that
7291
Perkins
and
Coie
503
Jr
perkinscoie
available
727
2176
tel
multco us
Perkins
com
this morning
503
Coie
wrote
20727
can
202176
offer
for a call
When
LLP
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
tel
tel
tel
503
503
503
727
914
346
Jennifer
To
Lake
Cc
Joyce
justicelawyers
April 22
Perriguey
Anna
RE
Jennifer
com
too
Sheila
call
between
Middleton
com mailto
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
11 01 AM
VON TER
H
com mailto
Conference
am available
2014
Katharine
Potter
mary h williams msn

Subject
com mailto
Middleton
JMiddleton
Tuesday
2176
8918
2176
mailto
Coie
Street
97209
727
503
E MAIL
Sent
multco us
Floor
Portland
From
tel
Johnson
N W
com
500
at
Ann
FAX
Perriguey
3377
perkinscoie
888
Tenth
Perkins
Lake
Attorney
Suite
Lea
1120
katevts
11 15
katevts
Apr 22
Thomas
Jr
call
County
503
mailto
TRJohnson
at
mailto
11 04 AM
Stegge
Senior
On
Conference
Ter
katevts
2014
mary h williams msn
s do the
Kate
STEGGE
April 22
Lea
STEGGE
Ann
Johnson
Mary
mary h williams msn
this morning
now
Easton
and
12 15
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Perkins
Coie
Williams
com
Isaak
Misha
Johnson
Johnson
975
Street
Oak
Eugene
541
OR
683
Schaller
Ste
PC
1050
97401
2506
tel
28541
29 20683
This
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
attorney
privilege
notify
client
the
Johnson
can
1120
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
confidential
communications
this message
in error
protected
please delete
it
Jr
Perkins
com mailto
Perkins
914
346
8918
Coie
2176
tel
tel
tel
503
503
503
727
914
346
Coie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
4 22 2014
10 55 AM
LLP
Tuesday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Ann
Easton
VON TER
com mailto
STEGGE
April 22
2014
mailto
katevts
com
multco us
10 46 AM
Perriguey
Sheila
Subject
Thomas
am free
Conference
I
was
anything
Kate
von
Ter
com mailto
call
planning
scheduled
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
JMiddleton
com mailto
justicelawyers
mary h williams msn
com
Joyce
Anna
Mary
com
this morning
on running
until
County
an errand
at
noon
but
can
do it
after
lunch
and
mailto
503
500
988
katevts
urldefense
Portland
3138
co
Multnomah
503
OR
988
County
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
3377
fax
proofpoint
com v1
url
u http
m twtF0KMjyEbRRHnS6oUBXQZx4NW12x3u
2Brw1gcAFRWg
multco usk
2BuHZLxY
3D
3D
hphQ
0A
0A
s e6bf483eeef064ea08b3cdad79155813fb705316fdba42ada75aa2edf37760d8
Apr 22
com
2014
at
10 39 AM
Lake
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
wrote
am available
all
morning
until
1 30
Lake
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Portland
Street
Oregon
97205
503
227
1928
tel
28503
29 20227
1928
503
334
2340
tel
28503
29 20334
2340
http
www
www
law
don
3 pm
Attorney
Suite
tel
3138
Tue
Lea
Stegge
Senior
0A r
Middleton
justicelawyers
have
https
Johnson
mary h williams msn

Re
katevts
Jennifer
JMiddleton
Williams
3D
2176
8918
2176
Katharine
On
and
4128
2176
From
works
by the
Street
97209
727
Sent
3D
received
Floor
Portland
may contain
you have
com
in a call
Johnson
N W
FAX
Thomas
perkinscoie
participate
Thomas
message
If
sender
TRJohnson
I
2506
com mailto
law
works
works
com k
com law
works
com
https
urldefense
3D
3D
proofpoint
com v1
url
u http
0A r
2BuHZLxY
2Brw1gcAFRWg
3D
3D
0A
0A
s 2421957c08fd2a26f68bb4fa29cbcaaa9d255cdcf649031b06bdf3eafb1ea7e7
skype
OTLA
On
lagojaime
Guardian
Apr 22
sheila
of
Civil
2014
potter
We
ve
to
a final
been
at
call
Chief
Oregon
Department
503
OR
tel
of
503
under
so that
we
way
to
appeal
get
coordinate
is
privileged
wrote
this through
mucking
can
or us
things
up
to
argument
Do
y all
tomorrow
have
and
time for a
other
Justice
947
attachments
NOTICE
information
you have
keep
the
law
CIRCULAR
received
contents
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
If
that
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
regulations
contained
4700
applicable
that
reply e mail
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
best
doj state
97301
4700
or otherwise
have
the
interlocutory
potter
NE
e mail may contain
Perkins
about
sheila
Trial Counsel
Street
disclosure
IRS
here
without
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Sheila
Potter
12th
947
Potter
or us mailto
this morning
Deputy
Salem
over
judgment
Sheila
158
10 31 AM
doj state
talking
conference
Justice
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
To
Joyce Anna
CC
Jennifer
Isaak
Sheila
H
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Misha
Perkins
Sent
4 22 2014 11 05 57
Subject
RE
Conference
Thomas
Johnson
Middleton
Jr
Mary Williams
Perkins Coie
mary h
williams
msn
com
Coie
AM
this
call
morning
Me too
From
Joyce
Sent
Tuesday
To
Anna
April 22
Katharine
Cc
Jennifer
VON TER
Middleton
mary h williams msn

Subject
Works
Anna
RE
2014
11 05 AM
STEGGE
Lake
com
Conference
Johnson
Thomas
Perriguey
Isaak
call
Potter
Misha
Jr
Sheila
Perkins
Perkins
Coie
Lea
Easton
Ann
Mary
Williams
Coie
this morning
for me
Joyce
Solicitor General
Oregon
Department
From
Katharine
Sent
Tuesday
of
Justice
VON TER
To
Johnson
Thomas
Cc
Jennifer
Middleton
Williams
STEGGE
April 22
2014
mailto
katevts
multco us
11 04 AM
Jr
Perkins
Lake
Perriguey
mary h williams msn
Coie
Joyce
com mailto
Anna
Potter
Sheila
mary h williams msn
Lea
com
Isaak
Ann
Easton
Misha
Mary
Perkins
Coie
Subject
Let
Re
Conference
s do the
Kate
von
Ter
call
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
On
3138
Tue
11 15
County
988
Apr 22
2014
just indicated
857
7291
R
Tenth
Couch
Multnomah
Portland
OR
Attorney
97214
fax
11 02 AM
Johnson
Thomas
com mailto
TRJohnson
to
she is
857
County
me that
7291
Perkins
and
Coie
503
available
727
Jr
perkinscoie
2176
tel
multco us
Perkins
com
this morning
503
20727
OR
503
LLP
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
tel
tel
tel
503
503
503
727
914
346
Jennifer
Middleton
2176
8918
2176
com mailto
can
202176
Street
97209
727
Coie
wrote
Floor
PHONE
From
888
Johnson
Portland
FAX
tel
co
at
Ann
N W
3377
perkinscoie
888
1120
500
katevts
Lea
Thomas
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
TRJohnson
this morning
Stegge
Senior
katevts
at
call
com
offer
my call
for a call
in number
When
mailto
Sent
JMiddleton
Tuesday
To
Lake
Cc
Joyce
justicelawyers
April 22
Perriguey
Anna
RE
am available
Jennifer
too
Johnson
975
Street
Eugene
541
OR
683
between
Schaller
Ste
tel
client
the
Johnson
Tenth
Couch
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
Jr
Perkins
Coie
com
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
now
and
12 15
29 20683
2506
com mailto
message
If
may contain
you have
received
confidential
com
communications
this message
in error
protected
please delete
Jr
Perkins
com mailto
Perkins
914
346
8918
Coie
2176
Tuesday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Ann
Easton
tel
503
503
503
VON TER
727
914
Coie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
4 22 2014
10 55 AM
LLP
346
2176
8918
2176
com mailto
STEGGE
April 22
Sheila
Subject
2014
mailto
katevts
com
multco us
10 46 AM
Thomas
am free
Conference
I
was
anything
Kate
von
Ter
com mailto
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
JMiddleton
com mailto
justicelawyers
mary h williams msn
com
Joyce
Anna
Mary
com
this morning
on running
until
an errand
at
noon
but
can
do it
after
lunch
County
Suite
tel
mailto
503
988
katevts
urldefense
Attorney
500
Portland
3138
co
Multnomah
503
OR
988
County
don
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
3377
fax
proofpoint
com v1
url
u http
2Brw1gcAFRWg
multco usk
2BuHZLxY
3D
3D
0A
0A
s e6bf483eeef064ea08b3cdad79155813fb705316fdba42ada75aa2edf37760d8
Apr 22
com
and
3 pm
Tue
Lea
Stegge
Assistant
0A r
call
planning
scheduled
Senior
3138
Middleton
justicelawyers
have
https
Johnson
mary h williams msn

Re
katevts
Jennifer
JMiddleton
and
Perriguey
Williams
3D
tel
tel
Katharine
On
by the
4128
2176
From
works
it
Street
97209
727
Sent
3D
mary h williams msn
Thomas
Williams
Floor
PHONE
Mary
in a call
Johnson
Portland
FAX
Thomas
perkinscoie
participate
N W
Johnson
Easton
sender
TRJohnson
1120
STEGGE
Ann
this morning
This
NOTICE
privilege
Thomas
Lea
PC
28541
attorney
can
com
97401
2506
CONFIDENTIALITY
justicelawyers
1050
notify
VON TER
H
com mailto
call
JMiddleton
Middleton
Johnson
Oak
Sheila
Conference
com mailto
11 01 AM
Katharine
Potter
mary h williams msn

Subject
2014
2014
at
10 39 AM
Lake
wrote
am available
all
morning
until
1 30
Perriguey
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
hphQ
Lake
James H
Lake
Law
Works
1906
SW
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Portland
Street
Oregon
97205
503
227
1928
tel
28503
29 20227
1928
503
334
2340
tel
28503
29 20334
2340
http
www
www
0A r
law
law
works
works
com law
com k
works
com
https
urldefense
3D
2BuHZLxY
2Brw1gcAFRWg
3D
3D
proofpoint
com v1
url
u http
3D
0A
0A
s 2421957c08fd2a26f68bb4fa29cbcaaa9d255cdcf649031b06bdf3eafb1ea7e7
skype
OTLA
On
lagojaime
Guardian
Apr 22
sheila
of
Civil
2014
potter
We
ve
to
a final
been
at
call
Chief
Oregon
Department
503
OR
tel
of
503
under
so that
we
way
to
appeal
get
coordinate
is
privileged
wrote
this through
mucking
can
or us
things
up
to
argument
Do
y all
tomorrow
have
and
time for a
other
Justice
947
attachments
NOTICE
information
you have
keep
the
law
CIRCULAR
received
contents
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
If
that
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
regulations
contained
4700
applicable
that
reply e mail
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
best
doj state
97301
4700
or otherwise
have
the
interlocutory
potter
NE
e mail may contain
Perkins
about
sheila
Trial Counsel
Street
disclosure
IRS
here
without
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Sheila
Potter
12th
947
Potter
or us mailto
this morning
Deputy
Salem
over
judgment
Sheila
158
10 31 AM
doj state
talking
conference
Justice
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sheila
Joyce Anna
H Tom
4 22 2014 11 09 28
Subject
Re
new
there a
Conference
number
call in
Call in number
1 862
Misha Isaak
mary h
Jennifer
Middleton
msn com
williams
JMiddleton
Katharine
justicelawyers
com
VON TER STEGGE
multco us
katevts
Sent
Is
Johnson
Mary Williams
If
not
AM
call
we
this
morning
can use the same one as yesterday
902 0250
9166667
PIN
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
22 2014
can participate
Civil
11 04
at
in
Justice
call
AM
this
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
wrote
morning
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Tom
April
Johnson
JMiddleton
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
2014 10 32 AM
22
Perkins
justicelawyers
Coie
Misha Isaak
com
Joyce Anna
Perkins
Subject
Conference
call
this
Lea Ann Easton
Lake
williams
Perriguey
msn com
Jennifer
Katharine
Middleton
VON TER STEGGE
morning
judgment without
morning so
Sheila
we
that
Trial
158 12
our
mucking
eorts

things
up
Do
all
have time for a
and to a nal
conference
call
this
with each other
Counsel
Oregon Department
th
can coordinate
way
Potter
Deputy Chief
Salem
Coie
multco us
katevts
We
Sheila
Tuesday
NE
Street
OR
of Justice
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Lea Ann Easton

JMiddleton
Sent
4 22 2014 11 13 34
Subject
County clerks
Anyone have
a creative thought
about
H Tom
Sheila
Potter
justicelawyers
com
Johnson
Joyce Anna
Misha Isaak
Jennifer
Mary Williams
Middleton
mary h
williams
msn com
AM
how we can make
these statutes
work
for us
05 510
County
1
No
clerk
county
not to act or have partner acting as attorney

during the term of office of that clerk institute or assist in instituting any suit
clerk shall
probate proceeding in any court of which the clerk
any such
action
suit
The county
or proceeding
clerk of
or have
is
an
a partner who
shall
Multnomah County and the deputies
partner practicing as an attorney at law
act as an attorney
officer
act as an attorney
of
action or
or counselor with or without hire in
n any
of
such proceedings
the clerk are prohibited from practicing or having a
while in office
205 110
General powers and duties of county clerk
1
The county
clerk in
each county
The county
clerk of
any county
shall
in
Keep the seal
Record the proceedings
Keep the records
File
Attend the terms of the court
therein
all
in
the court
of
of
which the county
and
affix
it
in
all
to
of
the county
governing
court has judicial functions shall
for
body
the county
court
cases required by law
the court
books and papers pertaining
files
papers delivered
to
the court
the clerk for that purpose in any action
or proceeding in the court
administer oaths and receive the verdict of a jury in any action
or proceeding
the presence and under the direction of the court
Under the
Authenticate
direction of
by
the court enter
certificate
or any paper pertaining thereto
keep and maintain the records
its
or transcript
and
filed
orders and judgments
as may be required
the records
files
or
with the clerk
Exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred upon the clerk by statute
proceedings
of
the court
the performance of duties pertaining to the court
In
The county
clerk
may
conform
to
the direction of the court
take and certify the proof and acknowledgment
of
other written instrument authorized or required to be proved or acknowledged
1983 c 327
5 1985 c 540
40 1991 c 230
a conveyance
1977 c 594
of real
property or any
2 1981 s s c 3
39
11
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
SE Hawthorne
501
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Is
Suite
500
Portland
503 988 3377
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Apr 22 2014
Tue
there a
new
call in
Call in number
at
11 09
number
1 862
AM
If
not
Lake Perriguey
we
lake
law works com
wrote
902 0250
9166667
PIN
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Street
Oregon
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On Apr
can
22 2014
participate
Civil
at
in
Justice
11 04
AM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
wrote
a call this morning
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Tom
katevts
Subject
April
Johnson
JMiddleton
We
Sheila
Tuesday
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 10 32 AM
22
Perkins
justicelawyers
Coie
com
Misha Isaak
Joyce Anna
Perkins
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake
williams
Perriguey
msn com
Jennifer
Katharine
Middleton
VON TER STEGGE
multco us
Conference
call
this
morning
judgment without
morning so
that
we
can coordinate
our
way
mucking
eorts

things
up
Do
with each other
all
have time for a
and to a nal
conference
call
this
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
th
158 12
Salem
Street
OR
Justice
NE
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
CC
Joyce Anna
Isaak
Sent
4 22 2014 11 15 13
Subject
RE
m fine with
Perkins Coie
mary h
Jennifer
Middleton
msn com
williams
JMiddleton
Katharine
justicelawyers
com
VON TER STEGGE
Conference
AM
call
this
morning
Lake s number to eliminate confusion
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Misha
Mary Williams
multco us
katevts
Perkins Coie
Jr
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
Potter
Thomas
Johnson
To
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Lake
Sent
perkinscoie
Perriguey
Tuesday
Lea Ann Easton
Cc
Potter
Sheila
JMiddleton
Subject
Is
Re
Johnson
number
Thomas R
com
Jr
Perkins
Joyce Anna
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Coie
Perkins
williams
Jennifer
msn com
Middleton
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
us
Conference
a new
there
Call in
com
2014 11 09 AM
justicelawyers
multco
katevts
law works
mailto lake
22
April
To
com
call
in
1 862
call
this
number
morning
If
not
we
902 0250
9166667
PIN
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
97205
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
OTLA
On
law works com law works
com
lagojaime
Apr 22
2014
can participate
at 11
in
04
call
AM
this
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
morning
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
Tuesday
Tom
Johnson
JMiddleton
katevts
Subject
April
mailto sheila
22
potter
Perkins
justicelawyers
Coie
com
Misha Isaak
Joyce Anna
multco us
Conference
call
doj state or us
2014 10 32 AM
this
morning
Perkins
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
Lake
williams
Perriguey
msn com
Jennifer
Katharine
Middleton
VON TER STEGGE
We
way
judgment without
morning so
Sheila
we
that
can coordinate
Trial
Do
up
all
have time for a
conference
call
this
with each other
Counsel
Oregon Department
th
Salem
eorts
things
Potter
Deputy Chief
158 12
our
mucking
and to a nal
NE
Street
OR
of Justice
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Kevin Diaz
To
Potter
Sent
4 22 2014 11 36 10
Subject
FW
Sheila
Conference
AM
call
this
morning
Sheila
Could you be sure to include the ACLU aorneys in email communica ons
Thanks
Kevin
From
Potter
Sent
To
April
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 10 32 AM
22
Thomas R
Johnson
JMiddleton
Jr
justicelawyers
Perkins
com
Coie
Isaak
Joyce Anna
Misha
Conference
call
this
Lea Ann Easton
Coie
williams
Lake
msn com
Perriguey
Katharine
Jennifer
Middleton
VON TER STEGGE
morning
way
judgment without
morning so
Sheila
we
that
can coordinate
Trial
158 12
eorts
things
Do
up
all
have time for a
conference
call
this
with each other
Counsel
Oregon Department
th
our
mucking
and to a nal
Potter
Deputy Chief
Salem
Perkins
multco us
katevts
Subject
We
Sheila
Tuesday
NE
Street
OR
of Justice
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Kevin Diaz
Sent
4 22 2014 11 42 42
Subject
RE
Aggggh
sorry
From
Kevin
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Subject
Yes
AM
this
call
morning
Of course
Diaz
mailto
kdiaz
April 22
Sheila
FW
Conference
2014
aclu
or org
11 36 AM
Conference
call
this morning
Sheila
Could
you be sure to
include
the
ACLU
attorneys in email
communications
Thanks
Kevin
From
Potter
Sent
Tuesday
To
Sheila
Johnson
Perriguey
Thomas
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Conference
ve
to
a final
been
talking
call
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
over
12th
Perkins
Coie
Lea
Ann
Easton
Lake
JMiddleton
com mailto
katevts
justicelawyers
mary h williams msn
com
Joyce
com
Anna
Katharine
Mary
VON TER
STEGGE
multco us
this morning
here
about
the
best
interlocutory
so that
we
way
to
appeal
get
this through
mucking
can
coordinate
is
privileged
things
up
to
argument
Do
y all
tomorrow
have
and
time for a
other
of
Justice
NE
97301
NOTICE
e mail may contain

under
attachments
you have
keep
the
law
CIRCULAR
received
contents
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
If
that
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
Misha
4700
or otherwise
have
Isaak
Trial Counsel
Street
OR
Perkins
or us
Potter
disclosure
IRS
doj state
Coie
com mailto
without
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
potter
Perkins
this morning
Sheila
947
call
judgment
conference
503
Jr
sheila
10 32 AM
Middleton
mary h williams msn
We
Salem
2014
multco us mailto
Subject
158
mailto
Jennifer
Williams
katevts
April 22
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Joyce Anna
To
Misha Isaak
Sent
4 23 2014 3 38 27
Subject
Argument
Sheila
Mary
and
your argument
best
way
So calm
It
was
Joyce
was
spent
Mary
the
and
poised and
lovely
to
watch
Solicitor General
Oregon
Department
of
first
I
have
Justice
Coie
PM
holy crap
Anna
Anna
Perkins
hope
part
of
watched
the
car
a ton
you knew
of
ride back
your stuff
your parents
to
arguments
were
And
there
PDX
and
not
and
talking
about
how
yours was
up there
in a pointy
headed
were
very
proud
great
with the
kind
of
From
Isaak
To
Joyce Anna
Sent
4 24 2014 11 49 05
Subject
RE
Misha
Perkins
Coie
AM
Argument
Anna
I
am honored
and
a little
has been
embarrassed
advocate
It
humbling
to
excellent
attorneys representing
work
all
to
receive
on a case
such
of
praise from the
this significance
State
s top
with a group
appellate
of
such
parties
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Joyce
Sent
Wednesday
To
Isaak
Subject
Anna
Misha
Mary
joyce
2014
Perkins
and
your argument
way
anna
doj state
or us
3 38 PM
Coie
Argument
Sheila
best
mailto
April 23
So calm
It
was
Joyce
spent
was
Mary
the
and
poised and
lovely
to
first
I
have
part
holy crap
watch
of
watched
hope
the
car
a ton
you knew
ride back
of
your stuff
your parents
to
arguments
were
And
there
PDX
and
not
and
talking
about
how
yours was
up there
in a pointy
headed
were
very
great
with the
kind
of
proud
Anna
Anna
Solicitor General
Oregon
Department
of
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
attachments
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
IRS
Justice
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
4 29 2014 2 56 28
Subject
message
Hey
Anna
there
M
will
call
Joyce
Department
of
Justice
dorsayindianlaw
com
PM
you shortly
Solicitor General
Oregon
LEaston
Have
to
run to
another
meeting
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
Sent
4 30 2014 8 14 51
Subject
Geiger
Attachments
Ware Decision pdf
No ce
This
intended
communica on
for
a specic
should delete
this
any disclosure
Mary Williams
Rummel
including
msn com
williams
Potter
Sheila
Recusal
may contain
any a achments
communica on and
copying
mary h
AM
and
is
protected
privileged or
by law
If
conde
you are
communica on
or the taking
n al informa on
and are
of any ac
hereby no ed that
on based on
it
is
strictly
prohibited
No ce
communica on
avoiding
including
any a achments
probably
on
or
ma er addressed
have a copy of
this
is
S federal tax advi
Code
or
ii
ce contained
and cannot be us
promo ng marke ng
or recom
ed
for
in this
the purpose of
mending to another
herein
decision but here s a copy of the decision from Perr y on the motion to vacate
judgment and recusal of Judge Walker
Lea Ann
inform you that any
party any transac
You
we
Case3 09 cv 02292
JW
Filed06 14 11
Document797
Page1
of
21
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN
Kristin
M Perry
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTINTERVENORS
MOTION TO VACATE
JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs
v
10
Arnold Schwarzenegger
et
al
11
California
Defendants
12
I INTRODUCTION
13
District
of
Northern
DIVISION
NO C 09 02292 JW
al
et
COURT
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO
7
8
DISTRICT
14
Presently
before the Court is Defendant Intervenors
15
made on
16
disqualified from presiding over this case
17
disqualification of a federal
18
require a federal judge to recuse if
19
the case or
20
the judge does not recuse a motion for disqualification
the ground that the presiding
judge Chief
District
Motion
to
Vacate
Judge Vaughn
The Motion
R Walker
is
retired was
The grounds and procedures for recusal or
the
For
if
there is
some
21
Plaintiffs
22
provision that redefined
23
one
24
to intervene to advance
25
federal Constitution
woman
judge are codified in Title 28
fact
in this case are
violated
inter
U SC
455
alia the judge has a substantial
et
seq Those
non pecuniary
that brings the impartiality of the judge reasonably
same sex
couples
who
may
into
statutes
interest in
question
be made by a party
claim that a California constitutional
marriage in California solely to encompass a union between one
their rights
under the federal Constitution
an argument
that
After a court trial
Defendant Intervenors
man and
were allowed
the California constitutional provision did not violate the
Judge Walker entered judgment for
Plaintiffs
and enjoined
26
27
28
A Jansson
Item
Dennis Hollingsworth
and Protectmarriage coms Motion
No 768
to
If
Gail
Knight Martin
F Gutierrez Mark
Vacate Judgment hereafter Motion, Docket
Case3 09 cv 02292
enforcement
reported that Judge
time when he was presiding over
District
presiding over the case because
California
to
against
them Defendant
Page2
Intervenors
of
21
appealed
that
Judgment
After he had retired and while the appeal was pending a newspaper article
Walker shared
that
this
he
is
case
gay and
that
he was in a
the Judgment on the ground that Judge
vacate
same sex
brought
relationship
this
at
the
Motion before the
Walker was disqualified from
nonpecuniary
interest
of the state constitution
Court
Filed06 14 11
Document797
his
samesex
relationship
was
or reasonably
appeared
to
be
could be substantially affected by the outcome of the case
that
the Oppositions to the Motion and the governing
After considering
law
as discussed
the Court finds that neither recusal nor disqualification was required based on the asserted
10
The
11
other
12
proceeding
13
basis for either recusal or disqualification under Section
14
is
15
constitutionality
16
proceedings
17
samesex
sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances
members
or personal characteristics
of the general public and that the judge could be affected
the same
in
way
that
other
members
below
grounds
with
by the outcome of a
of the general public would be affected is not a
455
b4
Further under Section
455
it
District
of
Northern
JW
not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable
of a
law
solely because
Accordingly the Motion
to
of making an impartial decision
as a citizen the judge could
about the
be affected by the
Vacate Judgment on the sole ground of Judge Walkers
the
For
relationship is
DENIED
II
18
19
detailed procedural
BACKGROUND
Law
20
Findings of Fact and Conclusions
21
In addition a videotape
22
summarizes the history of the case as relevant
From January
23
24
Aug
4 Order
Law
at
34
of
hereafter
and court reporters
11 17
On
2010
August
a bench
transcript
to
trial
of
26
from the enforcement
was
of Proposition 8 and Article
4 Order, Docket Item
recorded the
2010
No
708
trial
proceedings
The
at
34
Court
Motion
held by the Court with Judge Walker
2010 Judge Walker
27
28
Aug
the present
and entered Judgment against the government
25
history of this case can be found in the Courts August
presiding
entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions
Defendants
permanently
enjoining them
7.5 of the California constitution
Id
at
Case3 09 cv 02292
136 On
the Ninth Circuit
On March
California
2010 Defendant
See Docket Item
2011
Intervenors
Ware
appeal was pending Defendant Intervenors
Docket Item
an expedited hearing and
On May 10 2011
setting
10
County of San Francisco
11
No 775
12
Motion
13
Intervenors
14
associations have
15
783 788 793 On
Also on
Walker
filed
21
final
Judgment with
the District Court case
No 765 On
April
25 2011
the District Court to vacate
was
while the
Judgment
the
See
the District Court issued an Order setting the Motion for
See Docket Item
No 769
Defendant Los Angeles County Clerk Recorder
See Docket Item

3
moved
a briefing schedule
Motion
On May 12 2011
filed
a Statement of
Motion
No
City and
Plaintiff Intervenor
an Opposition to Defendant Intervenors
May 12 2011
Motion
See Docket Item
27 2011
Position on Defendant Intervenors
of
an appeal of the Courts
filed
the retirement of Judge
reassigned to Chief Judge James
April
Page3
No 713
following
No 768 On
Filed06 14 11
Document797
See Docket Item
State Defendants filed an Opposition to Defendant Intervenors
No 778 On May 13
Various legal organizations
2011
Plaintiffs
filed
an Opposition
to
Defendant
and a broad swath of local and minority bar
District
of
Northern
August
JW
filed
amicus curiae
June
13 2011
briefs
in opposition
the Motion
was heard and
Motion
submitted
See Docket Item
Nos
for decision
DISCUSSION
III
16
to the
the
For
17
Jurisdiction
Fed
18
R Civ P 60 b prescribes
19
20
over the case was disqualified
21
862 63 1988 Once
22
take certain actions
23
R Civ P 62.1 a provides
permissible ground for
moving
to
the grounds for moving to vacate
vacate
a judgment is that the district
See Liljeberg
Health
an appeal from a judgment

See Davis
that
is
district
court judgment
court judge
Services Acquisition
who
Corp 486
presided
U S 847
filed the district court is ousted of jurisdiction
Yageo Corp 481
F3d 661
a timely motion is
made
685
9th Cir
for relief
that
2007
However Fed
the court lacks
authority
24
25
See Defendant Dean
Statement of
No
Position
C Logan
Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder County Clerks
to Motion to Vacate Judgment Docket
Item
No 774
26
3
27
28
Plaintiffs
Opposition to Proponents
Oppn, Docket Item
Motion to Vacate Judgment hereafter Plaintiffs
No 779
3
to
Case3 09 cv 02292
California
Filed06 14 11
that
has been docketed
considering
court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial
notwithstanding
and
2 deny
motion
the pending
so doing
the
motion
appeal of the
or
state
Judgment
take one of the actions specified
to
is
pending the
either that
it
21
of
the
and
Page4
to grant because
district
court
may
1 defer
would grant the motion
issue.
the Court has jurisdiction
the
if
Therefore
hear this Motion
to
by Rule 62.1
Timeliness
Fed
R Civ P 62.1
provides
appeal is pending must be timely.
Oppn
at
17 19
b which
10
60
11
motion
12
Bank
is
April
challenge
Plaintiffs
a motion
permits a court to entertain
made at
On
13
a motion seeking relief
from a
to
is
2011 a
Weir
published
Butler 210
Motion
Plaintiffs
Fed
governed by
R Civ P
relieve a party from a final judgment
See
the earliest possible time after the facts are discovered.
Murphy
court while an
district
the timeliness of the
The timeliness of a motion to vacate a judgment
Az N A v
of
that
F3d
983
interview with Judge
988
n8
the
First Interstate
2000
9th Cir
Walker reported
if
that
he
is
gay and
in
District
of
Northern
Document797
in
an appeal
JW
14
10 year relationship with a physician.
15
a ground for disqualification from presiding over
16
Motion on April
17
filed
18
Plaintiffs
19
April
20
gay and
21
pointing to newspaper articles from 2010 that suggested that Judge Walker
25 2011
Apparently concluding
this
that
such a relationship constituted
case Defendant Intervenors
contend
that their
Motion
is
filed
the present
timely because
they
the
For
it
promptly after they learned of Judge Walkers
respond
2011 and
in
that
the Motion is untimely because
at least
relationship
two months before the Court announced
a relationship.
Plaintiffs
Oppn
at
Motion
17 19
decision
its
Plaintiffs
support
at
knew well before
that
this
is
12 13 n
Judge Walker is
contention
gay
by
22
23
24
Motion
25
26
See
Proponents
27
28
Dan Levine Gay Judge Never Thought to Drop Marriage Case

reuters com article 2011 04 06 us
gaymarriagejudge
at
citing
Apr 6 2011 available at http www

idUSTRE7356TA20110406
Reuters
Docket Item
eg
Motion
Declaration
to
of Enrique
Vacate Judgment
No 780 2
A Monagas in Support of
Opposition to
B Judge Being Gay a Non Issue During Prop 8 Trial
Plaintiffs
Ex
Case3 09 cv 02292
Because
JW
Filed06 14 11
Document797
the ground for Defendant Intervenors
Motion
is
Page5
and not his sexual orientation the Court does not find
relationship
provide
relationship that would be sufficient to render the Motion untimely
the Motion is timely within the meaning
The
of Rules
knowledge
60 b
that
and before a
such a Motion would be reviewed for
first
court judge
from 2010
same sex
of Judge Walkers
Therefore the Court finds
posture insofar as
entry of a Judgment
that is
under appeal
of the retirement of the presiding judge
in light
that
and 62.1
raised the Motion following
different district
samesex
the articles
Court observes that this Motion presents a unique procedural
21
Judge Walkers
a basis for imputing to Defendant Intervenors
of
While
California
10
the Ninth Circuit has not definitively
11
Motion
12
However because
13
need not reach whether a
14
is
brought
before the district
this
raised for the
held that such a standard
court but subsequent
to
time before the
first
would
court
circuit
apply in a case where the
judge
the retirement of the presiding
Motion would not survive the lower de novo standard of review the Court
clear error
standard would be
more
appropriate
District
of
Northern
clear error if
Recusal Pursuant to 28
15
At issue
16
The
is
U SC
455
b4
whether Judge Walker was required to recuse himself under Section
fact that
a federal judge shares a fundamental
characteristic
455
b4
with a litigant or shares
the
For
17
membership
18
courts as a sole basis for requiring a judge to recuse her or himself
19
that
in
a large association
such as a religion has been categorically

8
rejected
by federal
Defendant Intervenors deny
the Motion is based on bias against gay or lesbian judges or based on the broad proposition that
20
6
21
Weiss
Sheet Metal Workers Local
No
544 Pension Trust 719
F2d 302
304
9th Cir
1997
22
7
The Court examines
this
ground for the Motion
first
while recognizing
23
Court finds
24
under Section 455 a is an independent ground for disqualification

of
210
3d at 985 n1
25
26
Az
that
28
even
See
eg
if
the
of partiality
First Interstate
Bank
See e
Bryce v Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado 289 F3d 648 660 10th
Cir 2002 MacDraw Inc v CIT Group Equip Financing Inc 138 F3d 33 37 2d Cir 1998
Blank v Sullivan
Cromwell 418
Supp 1 4 S
1975 Feminist Womens Health
Center v Codispoti 69
3d 399 400 9th Cir 1995 United States v Alabama 828 F2d 1532
1541 42 11th Cir 1987 In re City of Houston 745
2d 925 931 5th Cir 1984
8
27
that
Judge Walker has no actual interest a finding or reasonable appearance
DNY
Case3 09 cv 02292
interest in
the constitutionality of a California Proposition that Plaintiffs contend
samesex
the case
is
incapable
narrow
Plaintiffs
of being fair if
Page6
a gay or lesbian judge
Motion
their
to
sexual orientation is an issue in a case
the contention
the underlying case were
in
21
of
that Judge Walker
same sex
Rather
had an actual
who
couples
were challenging
samesex
couples
relationship
to
marry At
because
though there was no evidence
samesex
he were
11
he were to decide
if
the time the case
10
California
Filed06 14 11
Document797
marry
desire to
Section
455
b4
were
that Plaintiffs
that
him
entitled to
have
to
at
that
them of the right as
Judge Walker was
Judge Walker had an
interest in
their right to
marry the
Walker in the position of deciding
Motion
provides
that
assigned to
Judge Walker intended
relationship placed Judge
to
contend
was
stripped
in
the case
marry restored even
sole fact that he
was
in
a case that could affect
him if
57
he
a judge shall disqualify himself where
knows
that
he
or as a fiduciary or his spouse or minor child residing in his household has a financial
12
individually
13
interest in
14
could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding
15
Section
16
subjective
17
contains two distinct bases for recusal
18
in controversy
19
be
20
unlike the former basis which
21
interests
22
Litigation 688
the subject matter in controversy
or in a party to the proceeding or any other interest that
District
of
Northern
JW
455 b
for mandatory
provides
one United
States
the
For
substantially
Spangle 626
F3d 488
1 when
496
9th Cir
2 when
The
1297 1308
not so modified requires recusal only
9th Cir
same sex
24
25
interest
marriage case who
However
is
other circuits
also in a
455
b4
in the subject matter
basis of any other interest,
latter
if
these
could be substantially affected by the outcome in the proceeding.
F2d
the test is a
Section
interest
455
a judge has any other interest that could
non pecuniary
In re
Cement
Antitrust
1982
Neither the Ninth Circuit nor any other circuit has considered
23
and thus
2010
a judge has a financial
by the outcome of the proceeding
is
Unlike Section
recusal in cases of actual bias
or in a party to the proceeding or
affected
samesex
have held
that
whether a judge presiding over
relationship has a disqualifying
non pecuniary
where federal judges have possessed speculative
26
9
27
28
See Motion
at
It
is
a gay or lesbian judge could not
important to emphasize at the outset that

sit
in on this case.
emphasis
in
we
original
are not suggesting
that
Case3 09 cv 02292
California
non pecuniary
interests
as
Filed06 14 11
Document797
members
of large groups
under Section
455
these interests
Alabama 828
warrant
attenuated nature of
large
judges impartiality exists in these circumstances.
by judges solely by nature of
mandating
the class, noting ripe grounds for manipulation
Valley
Mines Inc
10
parties
intentionally framed the litigation to involve the presiding
11
to
12
minority judges must disqualify themselves
13
at
disqualification
community
move
non pecuniary
interests
courts also have
their
for
recusal
385
that
membership
of the
F2d 188
way
191
in
F2d
21
too attenuated to
1541 42
at
member
In light of the
of the public or a
no personal bias or reasonable doubt about the
Id
a minority
group
courts have
1967
Houston 745
cautioned
against
major
F2d
at
931
citing Ely
finding recusal not warranted
judges personal interests
Further such a standard would come dangerously
all
benefits reaped
the attorneys in the case decided to frame
In re City of
9th Cir
non pecuniary
In regards to
in which
from
of
are
held by a judge as a general
concluded
recusal merely because
v Lee
4)].
Page7
civil
when
in
order
close to holding that
rights actions.
Alabama 828
F2d
1542
District
of
Northern
JW
These cases lead the Court
14
adopt the following
to
15
the general public based on the circumstances
16
the fact that a federal judge happens
17
be affected in a similar manner because the judge
18
disqualifying
to
legal
or characteristics
share the
same
conclusion
of various
circumstances
In a case that could
members
affect
of that public
or characteristic
and
will
only
the
For
19
the judge under Section
In applying this conclusion
to
455
is
member
of the public is not a basis for
b4
the present case the Court finds that Judge Walker
to recuse himself under Section
455
b4
on the ground
he was engaged
20
required
21
samesex
22
enforcement
23
right
24
member
25
because a court issued an injunction
26
presiding judge solely on the basis of the fact that the judge belongs to the class against
27
unconstitutional
28
relationship
and thus could
reap speculative
of Proposition 8 in California
of various
members
of the public
of the public to
who
could provide
law was directed would lead
to
in
a case involving laws
to warrant recusal
some
a Section
long term
restricting
the
personal interest that a judge gleans as a
might marry is too attenuated
that
in
benefit from an injunction halting
In particular
marry any
that
was not
speculative
455
b4
Requiring recusal
future benefit to the
whom
standard that required
the
recusal of
Case3 09 cv 02292
minority judges in
unworkable
California
if
Filed06 14 11
Document797
not all
civil
rights
cases
Page8
of
21
Congress could not have intended such an
recusal statute
Alternatively Defendant Intervenors
because his
samesex
restrictions
on
argument on two readily apparent grounds
constitutional adjudication
from application
majority The
relationship gave
same sex
contend
that
Judge Walker should be disqualified
him a markedly greater
interest in
The
marriage than the interest held by the general public
First
to presume that a
of the substantive
fact that this is
it
is
member
protections
inconsistent
a law on equal protection
being prosecuted by members of a minority group does not mean
11
group have a greater
12
society a variety of citizens of different backgrounds
13
bound ourselves
14
treatment
15
restriction
16
obligation to review the law to determine
17
when
18
a public good
19
couples seeking to end a California constitutional
20
have an equal
21
with the Plaintiffs
22
him no
23
citizen
protect
the fundamental
that
rest
we
coexist because
member
of the
and due process grounds
members
and due process than the
in equal protection
interest
with the general principles of
of our Constitution than would a
a case challenging
Court rejects this
of a minority group reaps a greater benefit
10
to
a case challenging
of the minority
of society
In our
have constitutionally
rights of one another from being violated
by unlawful
District
of
Northern
most
JW
Thus we
have an equal stake
all
on a fundamental
right
One
in
a case that challenges
of a
of the duties placed on the shoulders of federal judges is the
when unequal
our Constitution and
treatment violates
the
For
24
it
does not
that
To
the extent that a law is adjudged violative
benefits all in our society equally
interest in
albeit
the outcome of the case
one
that
disqualifying Judge Walker
made
restriction
on
The single
case
was
their right to
characteristic
on the merits than would
based on an inference
25
of a future legal benefit
26
standard for disqualification
27
assumptions about the amorphous personal feelings of judges
28
this
by
filed
samesex
marry all
that
of that law is
Californians
Judge Walker shares
might not have been shared with the majority of Californians gave
greater interest in a proper decision
Second
Although
available
exist
that
by constitutional protections
for any other judge or
he intended
would
result
to
take advantage
in an unworkable
Under such a standard disqualification would be based on
in
regards to such intimate and
California
JW
shifting matters as future desire to undergo
to engage
into the institution of marriage with a
reliance upon similarly elusive factors
interests
fervently intended
determination that could
Ninth Circuit has recognized
Feminist
in
So
family planning
Womens
marry a
member
to
of the same
Given Section
send a child
to
455
of
21
a particular university or
4) s requirement
399
non pecuniary
turn on whether
at
400
by an abortion
of such
a subjective
intended to
Article VI grounds in an action brought
11
one of the presiding panel judges belonged
12
test
13
lukewarmly maintained would collapse under such amorphous unworkable
14
thermometer
clinic
the Catholic
a judge
marry
The
recusal standard
In holding that recusal
10
to
that
undependable and invasive self reports
through
F3d
desire to enter
or in the future would require
partner versus merely lukewarmly
the inherent unworkability
Center 69
sex now
to require recusal recusal could
samesex
only be reached
Health
an abortion
Page9
too here a test inquiring into the presiding judges
must be substantially affected
to
Filed06 14 11
Document797
was
not warranted
on
against protestors of the clinic where
faith the court acknowledged
where recusal would turn on whether the judges religious
beliefs
that
any
were fervently held or

distinctions
Id
No
District
of
Northern
Case3 09 cv 02292
To
15
exits
for measuring
the heatedness
of a religious belief objectively.
hold otherwise and require recusal merely based on the fact that the presiding judge is
long term samesex
16
engaged
17
Such a standard would
18
membership
19
disclosed
20
similar disclosure as to the judges intent to
21
to adopt the principle that absence
22
presiding judge fervently
in a
relationship
is to
place an inordinate burden on minority judges
the
For
in
that
in
essence
a particular class
he
is in
10 year
infer
subjective
In this case
it
is
future intent on the basis of a judges
notable that the presiding judge has publicly

10
relationship with a physician.
marry whether now
of disclosure
However
there has been no
or in the future
should warrant the mandatory
The Court
declines
inference that the
intends to marry and thus holds an interest in this case that is
23
24
25
26
10
27
28
Dan Levine Gay Judge Never Thought to Drop Marriage Case

reuters com article 2011 04 06 us
gaymarriagejudge
Motion
at
citing
Apr 6 2011 available at http www

idUSTRE7356TA20110406
Reuters
California
by the outcome
11
substantially affected
or uncertainty
future especially
whom
Section
Circuit precedent
occurred
personal and likely ever changing subjective
renunciation
when such an
b4
is
it
intent
answer
Spangle
Inferring otherwise
beyond the
F3d
626
institutional
of
21
496
at
to
to
marry
would transmute the subjective
standard
or in the
of clear Ninth
such a disclosure had
of a court to interpret the subtleties of a judges
states
on such intimate matters
ever marry a person of the
same
Even
challenge should the judges disclaimer not ring true enough or should indications
11
judges intent had shifted since the renunciation
12
subjective
intent to take advantage
of constitutional
13
frustrating
congressional
protect
Thus
judicial
to
a full
sex would be ripe for
10
efforts to
now
standard of
in contravention
Further assuming arguendo
capacity
on the record of any intent
one intends
the willingness and participation of a partner for
involves
requiring actual bias into an objective

12
Page10
Absence of disclosure could equally connote ambivalence
in the face of such a weighty question as whether
the judge cannot
455
Filed06 14 11
Document797
the
arise that
base a recusal standard on future
rights is to create an inadministrable test
integrity
with a clear mandatory
recusal statute
District
of
Northern
Case3 09 cv 02292 JW
14
15
16
the
For
17
11
18
Contrary to Defendant Intervenors
Alabama on
19
their
membership
in
the class in neither
mandated such disclosure

20
recognized
in
Alabama
higher learning
21
judge
in
is
that
shared by
23
24
young black Alabamians.
all
F Supp
415
418
regarding
455
not required the Eleventh
not
828
to
F2d
and
information relevant to
b4
Circuit
attend a public institution of

at
1541
Moreover
while the
did disclose on the record certain facts that would be relevant to her
her past and current residential addresses and the voter
husband
the court neither based
the presiding judge to disclose her future intent to
predominantly black or Hispanic

592
was
interest disclosed or
of both herself and her
disclosure nor required
distinguish In re City of Houston
disclosures
case did the circuit courts hold that Section
any potential
member including
registration status
made
In fact in holding that recusal
In re City of Houston
status as a class
22
efforts to
the grounds that the judges in each
neighborhood
SD Tex 1984
or to register to vote
its
holding upon
move
See Leroy
into a
City of
Houston
Rather the court focused its inquiry on the factors that

placed the presiding judge within the class all of which would generally be a matter of public record
and did not extend to consideration
of future intentions
25
12
26
Moreover such
recognizing the opposite

of a judges
27
28
Ortiz
decision
Stewart 149
a presumption
would similarly contravene Ninth Circuit precedent
principle that a presumption
not to disclose
F3d 923
939
eg First
Cir 1998
See
9th
10
of impartiality should guide any interpretation
Interstate
Bank
of
Az 210 F3d
at
988
see also
California
455
b4
reliance on In re City of Houston
Section
Houston involved
the ground that
diluting
a resident of the City The City moved the judge
an action seeking injunctive
745
F2d
at
926 27
b5 i
the class
and
member
of the class
10
judge
deny the Citys motion Id
11
is
12
the judges
13
public
14
the judicial system if
15
judge might have
16
inasmuch as
17
at
18
455
The City contended
to
and Alabama for the principle
against the Citys
relief
at large
13
given her ethnicity
Id
at
was likely
it
930 The
Fifth
at
interest in
2 there
this
was
In re City of
election
recuse herself under Sections
to
recusal was warranted
that
that
system on
citizens
by
The judge assigned to the case was African American and
because the judge
that at least
Circuit held that
926 27
it
was
The court held
case is nonpecuniary
and
is
herself
a b 4 and
was
member
of
not clearly erroneous for the
that
the judges posture in this case
Section 455] because
no different from
a lack of any possible attrition
455
one member of her family was also a
not what Congress intended to proscribe in the recusal provisions of
21
discriminated against the Citys African American and Hispanic
votes
their
of
mandated recusal in the present case misinterprets the doctrine
it
Page11
that
of the general voting
of public confidence
in the impartiality of
District
of
Northern
Filed06 14 11
Document797
in
the outcome of this case
members
all
3 of the
recusal is not ordered
attenuated nature of any interest that the
4 of the
and
of the voting public in Houston
illusoriness
have an equal
of the class delineation
interest
in the suit
Id
the
For
932
Given the attenuated nature of the judges interest the court held
b 4 was
not required
Alabama
the Eleventh
In
20
American
21
children who are eligible to attend
22
learning
23
desegregating
24
on the
Fifth
recusal under Section
Id
19
trial
that
Circuit held that
was
it
not clearly erroneous for the African
judge who had minor children who were members of the class which included
to
deny a motion
to
or will
become
eligible
disqualify in an action
all
to attend the public institutions of higher
seeking solely injunctive relief
Alabamas system of public higher education
828
F2d
at
1541 42
Relying heavily
Circuits holding in In re City of Houston the court found that the interests of
the
25
13
26
Reply Brief
Hollingsworth Gail
27
28
in
Support of Motion
J Knight
hereafter Reply, Docket
Martin
Item
to
Vacate of Defendant Intervenors
F Gutierrez
No 787
11
Mark
A Jansson
Dennis
and Protectmarriage com
at
California
of
presiding judges children
beneficial effects of this suit upon these children were remote contingent
1541
children had any future intent to attend a public institution of higher learning
potential
t o disqualify
also would
all
The
court based its holding on the ground that
interest
major
are not substantial
enough
Page12
come
civil
is
dangerously
rights
in
to
judge on
21
and
merit disqualification
that
Id
a ny
Id
and speculative.
lacked evidence that the presiding
it
shared by all young black Alabamians.
the presiding
Moreover
and
at
judges
further
a ny
In addition the court found that
the basis of his childrens membership
in the plaintiff
class
close to holding that minority judges must disqualify themselves
actions, a result that would be intolerable.
Id
contrast to the present case both the Eleventh
and
from
1542
at
Fifth
Circuits faced
civil
10
rights actions that were brought on behalf of a class and in each case the presiding judge or that
11
judges minor children were parties to the action
12
13
attenuated given the fact that the benefit is not bestowed upon the presiding judge as a consequence
14
of his membership within a class but as a possible sideeffect of the enjoinment of the enforcement
15
of an unconstitutional
16
California
17
an attenuated
18
applies in this case
19
Accordingly
contend
is
affected
them Here any
before
substantial
by the outcome of the present action
is
interest
that
even more
District
of
Northern
Filed06 14 11
Document797
and thus
proposition
the
same
Such an
reasoning
interest is
that
the same as that shared by all citizens of
guided the Fifth and Eleventh
Circuits to hold that such
the
For
interest is
not sufficiently
DENIES
the Court
under Section
455
b4
20
ground
that
21
Recusal Pursuant to 28
substantial
the presiding
U SC
23
relationship did not constitute
24
his impartiality reasonably
25
contend
26
Further they contend that the
that
a substantial
into question
contend
interest
b4
also
Motion to Vacate Judgment on the
to recuse himself
even
Judge Walkers
if
under Section
to
of Judge Walkers
27
28
failed
that
under Section
Judge Walker should be disqualified
fact
judge
455
455 a
22
to require recusal under Section
12
455
protect
455
b4
Motion
at
that
2 10
same sex
relationship brings
Thus
they
the integrity of the judicial system
non disclosure
Id
of his relationship brings his
impartiality into question
turn
Section
that
Id
14
the party seeking disqualification bears a substantial
Torres
Chrysler
citing Reiffin
Fin
The Court
burden
2007
WL
whether a reasonable person with knowledge
11
impartiality might reasonably
9th Cir
1987
not someone
13
the reasonable person
14
well informed thoughtful observer
15
the record and law.
16
omitted
17
personal bias or prejudice.
is
Be
Herrington
at
21
in
Questioned
presumed
is
the judge is biased.
N D Cal Oct 25 2007
455
is
9th
The
that
the judges
F2d
Cir 1983
1488 1502
In this context
or unduly suspicious,
hypersensitive
for
one
an objective
Sonoma Cnty 834

321
be impartial
to
N D Cal 2001
Section
F2d 315
Nelson 718
who
that
3165665
1021 22
2d 1016
is
of all the facts would conclude
be questioned.
United States
quoting
show
to
of apparent bias sufficient to require dismissal under
creation
of
considers each contention
Could Reasonably
Since a federal judge
F Supp
Corp 158
10
12
be questioned.
Co No C 07 00915 JW
Microsoft
12
Page13
a judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
at
Impartiality
impartiality might reasonably
California
provides
but rather a
District
of
Northern
455
under Section
Whether Judge Walkers
455 a
Filed06 14 11
Document797
test
15
United
States
who
understand
Holland 519
F3d
all
909
the relevant
914
facts and has examined
9th Cir
2008
citations
This standard does not mandate recusal upon the mere unsubstantiated
suspicion
of
the
For
Id
citation
omitted
18
19
14
20
may
at
985
n1
there is no finding of actual bias or partiality the mere appearance

under Section
15
519
F3d
who
at
914
eg
citation
all
the relevant
omitted The Holland
However because
28
First Interstate
of partiality
Bank
of
Az 210
of impropriety, even
case
e the
facts
observer
under Section
455 a
is
and has examined the record and law. Holland
1 the
2 the
make
clear whether the law which
substantive
law governing
law of recusal governing
that
the case itself
judicial
conduct or
a reasonable observer would examine
the
to have meant that the reasonable observer would examine
it
of the
case and
the law pertinent
construes Holland to say that the reasonable observer under Section
examined the substantive law governing

27
eg
be the appearance
court did not
the Holland court stated
record and law, the Court understands

the record of the case
facts
would examine consists of
contract law in a breach of contract
3 both
26
may
that the reasonable
the court explained
understand s
the reasonable observer
25
See
require recusal
to
finding that the basis for recusal
In Holland
someone
24
455 a
where there was no suggestion of actual impropriety or lack of impartiality by a judge
22
23
if
sufficient
F3d
21
Even
be
the case itself
law of recusal
13
but
who
is
to
Thus the Court

someone who has
those facts
455 a
is
not necessarily familiar with the
The
California
reasonable observer
contemplated
law
by Section
contemplated
of the idea of reasonableness.
person the Court
subjective
of what is reasonable.
do so within the confines of the Constitution and other
regard a fact as bringing a judges
standard for minority judges whereby
in
other areas of the
is
one That is
there is no actual
judges
in
in
the objective
whose
person
creating
that
the fact that a judge is
11
recognizes
12
that fact
13
not determined
14
basis of what a majority of individuals in a group believe
gay
a fact is not necessarily a basis for questioning
might lead a segment of the public

on the basis of what a
to
question
particular
it
or black
at
is
bound to
would not be reasonable
doing so would
F2d
See Alabama 828
into a
or beliefs are used as the yardstick
law Thus
impartiality into question if
impartiality.
455 a
personification of reasonableness
doubts about
that
the reasonable person
standard of Section
thoughts
10
that
like
speaking of reasonableness in terms of the reasonable
converting
The Court
is
21
of
a personification created by the Court to facilitate discussion
However
careful to avoid
455 a
Page14
1542
a judges
institute
to
a double
or female would raise
the Court
In addition
impartiality merely because
the judges impartiality
Reasonableness
is
group of individuals may think nor even on the
District
of
Northern
Filed06 14 11
Document797
15
455 a
In addition Section
is
limited by the
16
requires as the basis for recusal something
17
by the judge during the course of
18
cautioned
19
Section
to
be the case
extrajudicial
16
source
other than rulings opinions
factor which
generally
formed or statements made
the
For
that
455
Section
455 a
trial.
Holland 519
F3d
at
913 14 The
Ninth Circuit has
claims are fact driven and as a result the analysis of a particular
claim must be guided not by comparison
to
similar situations
addressed
by prior
20
jurisprudence but rather by an independent examination of the unique facts and circumstances
21
particular
claim
at issue.
Clemens
of the
United States Dist Court for Central Dist of California 428
22
16
23
Scalia
24
eg
Cheney
explaining
that
determined by uninformed opinion s], even
28
re
all
Columbia 541
S 913 923 29 2004
motion that Justice Scalias
even though many members of the public had
for Dist of
455 a
legal
man inthe street
if
recusal
a significant portion of the press
Drexel Burnham Lambert
explaining that judges determine

determine
27
U S Dist Court
not reasonably be questioned,

he appeared to be partial in the case because the recusal question cannot be
such recusal see also In

26
in response to a Section
impartiality could
concluded
25
See
the appearance
861
F2d 1307
1313
of impropriety under Section
issues, and not by considering
would
Inc
show
14
demands
2d Cir 1988
455 a
as they
what a straw poll of the only partly informed
F3d 1175
recusal based on speculation.
California
9th Cir
2005
omitted Moreover
citation
Id
at
Page15
Section
of
455 a
21
does not require
1180
samesex
Here Defendant
been involved
in
11 12
The
8 year at
of the fact that Judge Walker
consideration
that
the time that Plaintiffs
commenced
this
would lead a reasonable person to question Judge Walkers
at
because
getting married which
duties
455 a
Court finds that disqualification under Section
upon
depends
it
contend
Intervenors
10 year
relationship
17
is
the assumption
so powerful
a judge
that
that
would render
it
Under Ninth Circuit law however

would recognize
who
this
assumption
is
well informed
the mere fact that a judge is in a relationship with another
personwhether of the same or the opposite sexdoes not ipso facto imply
12
interested
13
presumed
14
F3d
15
reflected
16
discharge and perform
17
equal right to the poor and to the rich
18
engage in speculation
19
suspicion
20
trigger
21
914
all
unreasonable
11
marrying that person
that
the judge must be so
he would be unable to exhibit the impartiality which
that
18
federal judges maintain
fails
this fact
of performing his
judge incapable
thoughtful observer
in
Motion
impartiality
on the basis of
10
that
suit committed
a relationship has an interest in
is in
that
has
Torres 2007
WL
3165665
at
is
it
see also Holland
519
District
of
Northern
1178
Filed06 14 11
Document797
at
912
explaining that a judges
in the oath whereby
general obligation to participate
federal judges obligate
their duties and to
themselves
cases assigned to
in
to
faithfully
him
is
and impartially
administer justice without respect to persons and do
the
For
that
28
quoting
U SC
453
To assume
otherwise
is
to
a judges motives and desires on the basis of an unsubstantiated
about
the judge is personally biased or prejudiced
the recusal requirements
of Section
455
Mere
Clemens 428
speculation
F3d
at
of that nature does not
1180 Holland 519
F3d
at
22
17
23
that
24
18
28
Motion
was
imply
Reply
contending
at
at
stating
unconstitutional
him
Further the mere
necessarily
get married if
27
eg
issue a marriage license to
25
26
See
Proposition 8
that that
that
no
interest
it
must be presumed that Judge
effect
d an
issue
Walker by
finding
injunction directing a state official
to
emphasis in original
an individual
fact that
individual
almost
is interested
two thirds
permitted to do so, which
California have
that
in
in being
of
is in
a relationship with a person does not
in getting married to that person at all
suggests that
married
15
See
samesex couples in California

more than one third of such couples in
committed
would
Non Disclosure
Whether Judge Walkers

Reasonable
Filed06 14 11
Document797
Page16
of
of His Relationship
21
Would Lead a
Observer to Question His Impartiality
2
contend
a reasonable observer
that
would question
3
Judge Walkers
impartiality given
the fact that Judge Walker
did not disclose his
same sex
4
relationship until eight months after final judgment
was entered and
after
he had
from the
retired
5
bench,
and because Judge Walker has never disclosed whether he and his partner have
or have
6
ever
had
any
interest
in marrying should a right to marry an individual
same
of the
sex be
7
Motion
established.
at
11 12
That is Defendant Intervenors
posit that Judge Walkers
silence
8
about the existence of his relationship and about whether he and his partner have any
in
interest
9
marrying would necessarily give rise
in
the
mind
of a reasonable observer to an assumption
that
he was not impartial
Judge Walkers
silence indicates
ambiguous and
thus is open to multiple interpretations
that
19
However
silence is by
its
very nature
California
11
District
way
Another and equally reasonable
to
12
interpret that
silence is suggested
13
of
Northern
10
that
any judge
is
impartial
See
by Ninth Circuit caselaw
eg
First Interstate
Bank
which holds
of
that
Az 210 F3d
it
at
is to
988
be presumed
stating
that
14
judges are presumed to be impartial and to discharge their ethical
duties faithfully
15
appearance
of impropriety see also Ortiz
Stewart 149
F3d
at
939
so as
to
avoid
the
e abide by the general
16
the
presumption
For
that
judges are unbiased and honest
Beginning from the presumption
that
judges are
17
impartial the Court postulates that a judge
who
is silent in
such a
situation
has already sua sponte
18
considered
the question
of recusal and has determined
that
he need not disqualify himself because
19
no reasonable observer would conclude
that
his impartiality could reasonably
To
be questioned
20
adopt Defendant Intervenors
contrary
interpretation would vitiate the presumption
of judicial
21
impartiality as
it
would lead the reasonable observer
to
the opposite
presumption namely
that
22
silence is to be taken as conclusive
evidence of a judges
partiality
23
24
25
26
19
27
28
As
the Court has previously
future subjective
interest
in entering a
found Judge Walker was under no
samesex
marriage
16
duty to disclaim any
California
reliance on In re Kensington
Corp 22
Page17
of
21
International Limited
20
United
States
was
Murphy21 and Tramonte
required
In re Kensington the Third Circuit found that a district
under Section
advisors in a complex
asbestos
stated that the burden was on the judge to inform the parties that he was being advised ex parte by
lawyers
Chrysler
support of the proposition that Judge Walker
in
23
to disclose the existence and nature of his relationship is misplaced
455
claimants
who
a because
in a separate
In
recused himself
with two court appointed
case
In re Kensington 368
F3d
at
302 04 The
because they were actively participating as zealous advocates
Id
313 14 Murphy
11
judge was the best of friends with the governments
12
the lawyer went on a vacation
13
37 The
Seventh Circuit found
14
vacation
plans with the lawyer
15
the defendant
16
by Chrysler which made
of interest
89
at
asbestos related case where those advisors were simultaneously representing
10
conflict
court judge should have
ex parte communications
of his extensive
Motion
at
trial
the burden
in
the other case had
which the
was on
trial
Murphy
court
district
principal lawyer and in which
immediately following the
together
that
a criminal
involved
in
Third Circuit
768
the judge and
F2d
at
1536
the judge to disclose his close friendship and
District
of
Northern
Filed06 14 11
Document797
and
in
Id
at
1537
Tramonte
which a family member of the
that
family
member
was a class action
district
court judge
member
a potential
suit in
owned
of the class
which Chrysler was
a car manufactured
Tramonte 136
the
For
F3d
17
20
368
F3d
289
768
F2d
1518
7th Cir
1985
136
F3d
1025
5th Cir
1998
3d Cir 2004
18
21
19
22
20
23
In addition
21
Section
455
to
Walker because
22
full
23
this
of his
same sex
contention
for disqualification
may
arises only under Section
24
provided
that
there
was
a valid
previously
26
Section
relationship
is
misguided
28
was
Section
455
a judge
may
obligated
455 e
accept
at
either
Walker had a duty under
contending
quoting
28
U SC
governs the conditions
states
that
waiver of
if
that
that
Judge
to recuse himself or to provide
455
under which a ground
the ground for disqualification
ground from the parties
waiver is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for

Thus the requirement of disclosure on the record is conditional on the finding
ground for disqualification under Section 455
However as discussed
that
Walker had no valid ground for disqualifying himself under
Therefore the disclosure requirement
Judge Walker had no obligation under Section

27
See Motion
be waived by the parties and
the Court finds that Judge
455
appear to suggest that Judge
relationship
the
disqualification.
25
samesex
on the record of the basis for disqualification
disclosure
However
disclose his
455 e
record
17
of Section
to
455 e was
not triggered
and
disclose his relationship status on the
1027
at
children
disqualifying
California
Fifth
owned
Page18
of
21
Circuit found that the burden was on the judge to disclose whether her spouse or
a car manufactured
Id
clear concrete
in the outcome
that
individuals
disclose
information about his personal life
of the litigation
And
of such
1030 31
at
more
the judge was associated with one or
stake
by Chrysler because a judge has a duty to be watchful
and disclose them on the record
circumstances
In each of these instances
in each instance
individuals
who
had a
the appellate court found
the judge was required to disclose the existence and nature of his association with those
Here by
contrast Judge Walker had no such association
cite
no case suggesting
when such
with an individual having a clear concrete stake
11
aware of any cases standing for that proposition

In fact the Court observes that Judge
Among
13
integrity
14
were
15
reasonably
16
Such a precedent
17
incorrectly
18
history of being sexually abused
19
intent of Section
20
transparency
21
extensive
22
appearance
23
would be harmful
of the judiciary
in
to
a judge has a duty to disclose
information does not pertain to the judges
10
12
that
and thus had nothing
the outcome of the litigation
association
and the Court
is
not
of caution
he
24
Walker
like all
judges had a duty to preserve the
other things this means that if
in
an overabundance
District
of
Northern
The
Filed06 14 11
Document797
to
have disclosed intimate but irrelevant
related to the question
details
of disqualification
would be detrimental
to
about
his personal life
he could have
set
that
were not
a pernicious
the integrity of the judiciary because
it
precedent
would promote
the
For
disclosure
it
455
eg
by judges of highly personal information

as a
child however
which was designed
is clear that
to
irrelevant
or
information about a judges
timeconsuming
preserve judicial integrity through
fostering the practice
of commencing
judicial
Contrary to the
practices of
with an
proceeding
exploration into the history and psyche of the presiding judge would produce the spurious
that
irrelevant personal information could
to
impact the judges
decision making which
the integrity of the courts
24
25
24
26
In re
In fact courts that have
McCarthey 368
F3d 1266
essentially will require district
27
28
factual
considered
1269
the question
10th Cir
2004
have taken the opposite view
judges to submit to discovery
basis for disqualification on
non financial
matters
18
See
eg
declining to craft a procedure that
when
a party lacks an adequate
Finally the presumption
all people
samesex
in
presumption and one which has no place in
reasoning
Judge Walker
him
judge
is
rising above
cite
Judge Walker was incapable of being impartial without concrete evidence
12
by virtue of being in a
relationship
incapable
of being impartial in a case in which
women
The presumption
be married
to
that
On
seek legal relief
that
that
rendered
a female
the contrary
relationship is capable
presumption
is
that
Judge Walker would be incapable of being impartial but
inconsistent
Accordingly
with what is required
the Court
DENIES
to
to
presume
fails
to
that
support that
under a reasonableness standard
it
of
any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits The Motion
any evidence
25
Motion to Vacate Judgment on the
the presiding judge failed to recuse himself under Section
that
21
as the presumption
samesex
reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a
ground
had a desire
of making an impartial decision is as warrantless
incapable
is
samesex
legal
of
think alike is an
relationships
unreasonable
11
California
that
Page19
10
455
IV CONCLUSION
13
District
of
Northern
Filed06 14 11
Document797
The
14
Court
DENIES
Motion to Vacate Judgment
15
16
Dated
June
14
2011
the
For
26
JAMES
WARE
United States
17
District
Chief Judge
18
19
25
20
Defendant Intervenors also point to a number of Judge Walkers

and substantive,
procedural
21
appearance
that
22
455
United
States 510
rulings would deepen
However
U S 540 555
the concerns
Motion
at
34
a valid basis for a Section
1994
the
to
Defendant Intervenors concede
a basis for such a motion
455 a motion
Id
at
12
citing
Defendant Intervenors only contend
a reasonable observer
impartiality as a result of his
as discussed previously
Judge Walkers
that
rulings in the case both
the nature of these rulings contributes
these rulings of themselves would not constitute
about Judge Walkers

24
under Section
that
insofar as judicial rulings almost never constitute

Liteky
23
of partiality
and contend
would
they contend
long term samesex
that
such
already have
relationship.
Id
the Court finds that a reasonable observer would not question
impartiality on the basis of his
samesex
relationship
25
26
26
In light of the Courts finding that there
not reach the issue of whether
extraordinary remedy of vacating
27
28
at
was no
violation of Section
such a violation would be of such a degree as

the Judgment
under
862 63
19
Fed
R Civ P 60 b
to
455
the Court need
warrant the
See Liljeberg 486
US
Filed06 14 11
Document797
Page20
of
21
THIS
TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO
IS
2
Alan Lawrence Schlosser aschlosser aclunc org
3
5
6
Amir Cameron Tayrani Atayrani gibsondunn com

Andrew Perry Pugno andrew pugnolaw com
Andrew Walter Stroud stroud mgslaw com
Angela Christine Thompson angelathompsonesq gmail com
Austin
Nimocks animocks telladf org
Brian Ricardo Chavez Ochoa chavezochoa yahoo com
Brian
Raum braumtelladf org

Cooper ccooper cooperkirk com
Charles
Charles Salvatore
LiMandri cslimandri limandricom
Van Aken christine van aken sfgov org

Christopher Dean Dusseault cdusseault gibsondunn com
Christopher Francis Stoll cstoll nclrights org
Christopher James Schweickert
cjs wcjuris com
Claude Franklin Kolm claude kolm acgov org
Christine
9
10
Daniel
Powell Daniel Powell doj ca gov
11
David Boies
California
David
12
13
District
14
15
16
the
For
David
17
18
19
Bunim
dthompson
cooperkirk
com
L Llewellyn
Turner iturner nclrights org
James Bopp jboppjrbopplaw com

James
21
sfgov org
Dbunim haasnaja com
H Thompson
Ilona Margaret
20
chou
dboies bsfllp com
Dllewellyn LS4law com

David
Balabanian david balabanian bingham com
Diana E Richmond drichmond sideman com
Elizabeth
Gill egill aclunc org
Enrique Antonio Monagas emonagas gibsondunn com
Ephraim Margolin ephraim margolinyahoo com
Eric Grant grant hicks thomas com
Eric Alan Isaacson erici rgrdlaw com
Erin Brianna Bernstein Erin Bernstein sfgov org
Ethan
Dettmer edettmer gibsondunn com
Gordon Bruce Burns Gordon Burns doj ca gov
Herma Hill Kay hkay law berkeley edu
Holly L Carmichael holly l carmichael gmail com
Howard
Nielson hnielson cooperkirk com
David
of
Northern
Danny Yeh Chou danny
James
Campbell jcampbell telladf org
C Harrison jharrisonrjp com
James Dixon Esseks jesseks aclu org

22
James
Jennifer
23
Brosnahan jbrosnahan
mofocom
Carol Pizer jpizerlambdalegal org
Lynn Monk jmonk faith freedom com

Goldman jgoldman bsfllp com
Jerome Cary Roth Jerome Roth mto com
Jesse Michael Panuccio jpanuccio cooperkirk com
John Douglas Freed jfreed cov com
Jon Warren Davidson jdavidson lambdalegal org
Jordan
Lorence jlorence telladf org
Joren Surya Bass jbassperkinscoie com
Jose Hector Moreno jhmoreno jhmlaw com
Jennifer
Jeremy Michael
24
25
26
27
28
20
Page21
of
21
Josh Schiller jischiller bsfllp com

Judy Whitehurst
Filed06 14 11
Document797
Jwhitehurst counsel lacounty gov
Kari Lynn Krogseng
krogseng
rjp com
Kelly Wayne Kay oakkelly yahoo com

3
Kevin Trent Snider kevinsnider pacificjustice org

Lauren Estelle Whittemore lwhittemore fenwick
5
6
Albert Coles
Matthew
Dempsey McGill mmcgillgibsondunn com
Patrick
org
mwolf nethere com
Michael James McDermott

Michael Stuart Wald
mcoles aclu
John Gorman
mjm1usaaol com
mwald stanford edu

pgorman wctlaw
Peter Obstler peterobstler bingham
11
Peter
Peter
Richard
ppatterson cooperkirk com
Patterson
Renn
com
com
prenn lambdalegal org

rbettan bsfllp com
Bettan
California
Robert Henry Tyler rtyler faith freedom

12
District
P Flynn
com
flynn sfgov org

rbaxter bsfllp com
ronald
C Baxter
Sarah Elizabeth Piepmeier spiepmeiergibsondunn com

Shannon Minter sminter nclrightsorg
14
Stephen
V Bomse
sbomse orrick com
Steven Edward Mitchel mitchelsteve yahoo com

15
16
the
For
Ronald
Rosanne
13
of
Northern
10
org
Matthew
Michael Wolf
8
com
Kramer lkramer fenwick com

Louis P Feuchtbaum lfeuchtbaum sideman com
Manuel Francisco Martinez manuel martinezacgov
Mark Russell Conrad Mark Conrad mto com
Mary Elizabeth McAlister court lc org
Leslie
17
spopik chapop com

Tamar Pachter Tamar Pachter doj ca gov
Tara Lynn Borelli tborelli lambdalegal org
Terry Lee Thompson tl thompson earthlink
Susan Marie Popik
Theane Evangelis Kapur
19
gibsondunn
net
com
B Olson
tolson gibsondunn com

Theodore Hideyuki Uno tuno bsfllp com
Theodore J Boutrous tboutrous gibsondunn com
Thomas
Burke thomasburke dwt com
Timothy D Chandler tchandler telladf org
Theodore
18
tkapur
20
21
Dated June 14
2011
Richard
W Wieking
Clerk
22
By
23
24
25
26
27
28
s JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
4 30 2014 8 15 03
Subject
Automatic
am out
urgent
Counsel
of
the
office
Sheila
and
reply
will
matter
for the
Division
Steve
Lippold
by calling
not
my legal assistant
respond
return
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
Thank
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
you
Rummel
Recusal
be checking
please contact
please contact
when
AM
Geiger
503
947
Mary
4700
e mail through
executive
If
Sunday
assistant
you have
Hamilton by calling
an urgent
971
673
May 4
Joan
Green
case
1880
If
you have
or Chief
related
Otherwise
matter
I
an
Trial
will
Sent
VON TER STEGGE

H Mary Williams
Jenny MADKOUR
4 30 2014 4 10 19 PM
Subject
Geiger response to motion to intervene
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Sheila
Mary Anna
Sheila
Assuming
would
like
the State
is
still
objecting
to join in your response
to
NOM
Does
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
that
Thanks
501
Joyce Anna
attempt to intervene based on timeliness and substance
work
for you
the County
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
4 30 2014
Subject
Automatic
am out
urgent
Counsel
of
the
office
H
VON TER STEGGE
4 11 01 PM
Sheila
and
reply
will
matter
for the
Division
Steve
Lippold
by calling
not
please contact
my legal assistant
respond
return
when
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
Thank
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
you
be checking
please contact
503
947
Mary
4700
e mail through
executive
If
Sunday
assistant
you have
Hamilton by calling
an urgent
971
673
May 4
Joan
Green
case
1880
If
you have
or Chief
related
Otherwise
matter
I
an
Trial
will
H
VON TER STEGGE
From
Potter
To
Katharine
CC
Mary Williams
Sent
4 30 2014 4 21 05
Subject
Re
Sheila
Joyce Anna
Jenny
Sure
And as part of our shared response
county clerk piece
I got the impression
it
d probably
Mult
Co and
official
without
We
can
help
capacity
send
clients
can
kind
of
Deputy
Chief
be able
you re not
have
to
of
under
is there any way that you could help with the

from you that there isn t one consistent
rule
put
aware
his office
grant
in the
in something
of
any county
s interests
authority from the

the
oral common
constitutionality
of
to
show
in Oregon
represented
county
interest
state
that
this isn t
where
the
in court
how
clerk
it
but
works
in
in his
by an advocacy
group
Or something
agreement
in representing
our various
law
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon Department
Apr 30
katevts
Sheila
to
you a draft
interest
Sheila
On
even
maybe that
some
MADKOUR
PM
2014
of
at
Justice
4 11 PM
multco us mailto
Mary
Anna
Assuming the
State
substance
the
is
County
Katharine
katevts
VON TER
multco us
still
objecting
would
like
to
to
STEGGE
wrote
NOM
s attempt
to
join in your response
intervene
Does
based
that
work
on timeliness
and
for you
Thanks
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
3138
County
Suite
503
mailto
988
katevts
CONFIDENTIALITY
Attorney
500
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
co
Multnomah
multco us
NOTICE
This e mail may contain information

law
If
that is privileged
confidential
or otherwise exempt from
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
that
keep
you have
the
received
contents
from your system
confidential
and
please advise
immediately
delete
the
me immediately
message
and
by
any
VON TER STEGGE

H
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Mary Williams
Sent
4 30 2014 4 26 02
Subject
Re
Sheila
Joyce Anna
MADKOUR
Jenny
PM
We
Thanks for the quick response
will
We
get on the clerk aspect
would love to check out a
draft
and
will
keep
it
to ourselves
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Wed
Apr 30 2014
And
Sure
impression
show
at
4 21
PM
Potter Sheila
as part of our shared response
from you
that this isn
that
how
it
there isn
works
Mult
capacity can have
clerk in his official
Co
can send you a
constitutionality
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
draft
potter
sheila
way
rule
and maybe
that
but
it
that
doj state or us
wrote
you could help with the county clerk piece
d probably help even
got the
to be able to put in something to
you re not aware of any county
represented in court b
his office s interests
kind of grant of authority from the county
We
there any
one consistent
in
is
in
y an advocacy
Oregon where the

group without some
Or something
under the oral common
interest
agreement
in
representing our
various clients
interest
in
the
of state law
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On Apr
30 2014
at
Justice
4 11
PM
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
Mary Anna
Sheila
Assuming
would
like
the State
is
still
objecting
to
NOM
Does
that
work
for you
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior
501
SE
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
Suite 500
Multnomah
Portland
503 988 3377 fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
the County
katevts
mailto katevts
co multnomah
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
multco us
http
multco us
NOTICE
applicable law
or us
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
VON TER STEGGE

H
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Mary Williams
Sent
4 30 2014 4 26 02
Subject
Re
Sheila
Joyce Anna
MADKOUR
Jenny
PM
We
Thanks for the quick response
will
We
get on the clerk aspect
would love to check out a
draft
and
will
keep
it
to ourselves
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Wed
Apr 30 2014
And
Sure
impression
show
at
4 21
PM
Potter Sheila
as part of our shared response
from you
that this isn
that
how
it
there isn
works
Mult
capacity can have
clerk in his official
Co
can send you a
constitutionality
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
draft
potter
sheila
way
rule
and maybe
that
but
it
that
doj state or us
wrote
you could help with the county clerk piece
d probably help even
got the
to be able to put in something to
you re not aware of any county
represented in court b
his office s interests
kind of grant of authority from the county
We
there any
one consistent
in
is
in
y an advocacy
Oregon where the

group without some
Or something
under the oral common
interest
agreement
in
representing our
various clients
interest
in
the
of state law
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On Apr
30 2014
at
Justice
4 11
PM
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
Mary Anna
Sheila
Assuming
would
like
the State
is
still
objecting
to
NOM
Does
that
work
for you
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior
501
SE
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
Suite 500
Multnomah
Portland
503 988 3377 fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
the County
katevts
mailto katevts
co multnomah
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
multco us
http
multco us
NOTICE
applicable law
or us
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
H
VON TER STEGGE
From
Potter Sheila
To
Katharine
CC
Mary Williams
Sent
4 30 2014 4 39 16
Subject
Re Geiger response
Hurrah
Joyce Anna Jenny
MADKOUR
PM
to
motion to intervene
Will do
Sheila H
Potter
Trial Division
On Apr 30
2014
at 4 26 PM
Thanks for the quick

keep it to ourselves
Kate
von
Senior
Ter
response
We
will
VON TER
STEGGE
get on the clerk
katevts
aspect

We
would love
to check
multco us
wrote
out a draft and wil
Stegge
Assistant County
501
SE Hawthorne
503
988 3138
katevts
Katharine
Suite
Attorney
500
503 988 3377
mailto katevts
Multnomah
Portland
County Attorney
OR 97214
fax
co multnomah or us multco us http
multco us
On Wed
Apr 30
2014 at 4 21 PM
Potter Sheila H
wrote
Sure
And as part of our shared response
is there any way that you could help
with the county
clerk
piece
I got the impression from you that there isn t one consistent
rule
but it d probably help even to be able
to put in something to show that this isn t how it works in Mult Co and maybe that you re not aware of any
county in Oregon where the clerk in his official c apacity can have his office s interests represented in
court
We
by an advocacy
can send you a
group without
draft
under
the
some kind
oral
of grant of authority
common
interest
agreement
from
the
county
in representing
Or something
our various
clients
interest in the constitutionality
of
law
state
Sheila H
Potter
Trial Division
On Apr 30
2014
at 4 11 PM
mailto katevts
Sheila
Mary
multco u
s mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
Anna
Assuming the State is still

objecting to NOM s attempt to intervene
County would like to join in your response
Does that work for you
based
on timeliness
and substance
the
Thanks
Kate
von
Senior
Ter Stegge
Assistant County
501
SE Hawthorne
503
988 3138 tel
Suite
Attorney
500
503 988 3138
katevts
mailto katevts
multco us
tp
CONFIDENTIALITY
Multnomah
Portland
County Attorney
OR 97214
503 988 3377 tel
503
988 3377
co multnomah or us mailto katevts
fax
o multnomah or us
multco us http
multco us
ht
NOTICE

confidential
If you are not the addressee
or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have
and
immediately
delete
the message
and any attachments
from your system
VON TER STEGGE

H Mary Williams
3 24 58 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
5 1 2014
Subject
Geiger response
FYI
Sheila
ve drafted a couple of pages on the clerk issue and
address the fact that the Multnomah

decisions in which the county
states
official
that
even with elected
in
at
or where
Multnomah
trying to find out a
little
bit
it
is
not a party but
county
may have an
the commissioners
more about how things work
decision about outside counsel for elected
officials
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
about to start on a declaration
for
my
boss which
county code and executive orders say the county a ttorney controls
involved
officials
am
interest
contro
will
litigation
The county code
also
whether or not the elected
gets outside counsel
m also
501
Joyce Anna
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
in
Clackamas
think even
there the board makes a
VON TER STEGGE

H Joyce Anna Mary
5 09 36 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
5 1 2014
Subject
Geiger
Attachments
201405011700
Attached
a draft declaration
is
Sheila
clerk
Williams
issue
pdf
Dec
and supporting
of
Madkour
in
Opposition
to
Motion to Intervene
documents
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
From
Date
County Attorney
97214
fax
message
co multnomah or us
networkedcopiers
Thu May 1 2014

Message from
Subject
This
OR
multco us
Forwarded
To
Multnomah
Portland
Kate
katevts
mail
was
at
PM
5 01
NDEP ATRNY RICOH MPC5502A
multco us
sent from
NDEP ATRNY RICOH MPC5502A
Scan Date
05 01 2014 17 00 58
Queries to
networkedcopiers
0700
co multnomah or us
Aficio
MP
C5502A
doc
CHAPTER 25 NONDEPARTMENTAL
DIVERSITY AND EQUITY

25110
Office
25120
Duties
Established
SUSTAINABILITY
25210
Office
25220
Duties
Established
COUNTY ATTORNEY
25310
Office
25320
Duties
25330
Relationship
Established
To
County
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
25410
Definitions
25420
Office
25430
Incident
25440
Succession
Authority
25450
Declaration
of Emergency
25460
Regulation of Persons
25470
Price
25480
Violation
of
Emergency Management
Command
System
and Property
Gouging Prohibited
of Cur few or
Emergency
Regulation
25490
Emergency Service
Volunteers
COMMUNICATIONS
25560
Office
25570
Dirties
Established
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
25610
Office
25620
Duties
Established
Workers
Multnomah County
Chapter 25
Nondepartmental
SUSTAINABILITY
DIVERSITYAND EQUITY
Ord
Ord
1166
OFFICE ESTABLISHED
25210
OFFICE ESTABLISHED
25110
established
An
established
An
Add 07082010
Add 070820 10
1166
office
and Equity Office
of Diversity
is
of
office
Office
Sustainability
The Director
of the Office
is
the
Sustainability
is
reports directly
The Director of the Office
and Equity Manager

directly
Ord
1166
to
the
is
the Diversity
The Director of the Office
Ord
1166
Director
of the Office
reports
Chair
Add 07082010
Add 07082010
the
to
Chair
The
Manager
DUTIES
25220
DUTIES
25120
The Director will

The Director will
Coordinate
A
enhance
Business
Affirmative
Action
Opportunities
programs
Cultural
for
to
Diversity
Competency and
Minorities
Women
and
Emerging Small Businesses
Office
B
Provide
strategic
of Diversity
and Equity
C Manage
contractors
equity staff
D
Ord
overall
budget
07082010
Amended
to
04142011
to
the
Board
and
coordinate
sustainability
the
program
Office
B
Provide
overall
strategic
direction
to
the
of Sustainability
C Manage
staff
budget
and
Ord
Ord 1166 Add
implement
environmental
countys
the
and other diversity
and compliance
Provide regular updates
1178
direction
Plan
contractors
and other sustainability
and compliance
1166
Add 07082010
to
the
Board
Chapter 25
Nondepartmental
COUNTYATTORNEY
Ord
1166
Renum7200
An
office
of
County
Claims Act
County Attorney
the
and
county
County
The
shall
Attorney
consent
to
subject
be
shall
Chair
after
first
concerning
07082010
Renum7200
02242000
passed
90
Code
of the
the
230550
of
with
office
other
its
the
Chair
and
all
county
Sheriff
Provide
and
advice
counsel
to
and
advice
counsel
to
the
and offices
and
advice
official
party
counsel
to
the
D
documents
Prepare
Chair
and
ordinances
requested
by
Sheriff Auditor or
formal
Prepare
other
member
legal
Board
of the
the
by
contracts
ordinances
as
to
resolutions
form
all
written
Board
orders
documents
Chair
executive
Control
rules
bonds
and supervise
legal proceedings
has a legal interest
in
by
have
regarding operations
of
Board
the
to
report
actions
legal
and other legal
all
civil
which the county
actions
is
and
the
at
which
in
of any
request
of any legal
status
and
a party or
written
deemed
opinions
County Attorney
regarding
Formal
of federal
and ordinances
Charter
and
may be
and
other
state
law
the
documents
opinions
official
shall
be
or
by
requested
official
guidance
to
the
county
county
by court or administrative
subsequent
legislation
any
department director Formal
superseded
unless
decisions
or administrative
or
rules
actions
opinions
Maintain
office pleadings
department director
and approve
shall
significant
and
Review
all
on the
report
opinions
and Auditor
when
delegated
the
boards commissions
departments
legal
as
Sheriff
matter
elected
or
the
that
of
status
is
county
necessary
legal
Board
the
any legal
any court or tribunal
Office
interpretations
Provide
in
Submit formal annual
elected
and committees
representation
or appeal
appear
over legal actions
the Sheriffs
legal
by
requested
concerning
various advisory
defend
Initiate
authority
The County Attorney shall
Provide
such
provides
Board resolution except
the
which
the decision
Ord 943 Amended

07011998 Ord 884
DUTIES
Board and
matters
or
policy
matter or proceeding
when
09041997
25320
legal
unless
and defense
Board
each
appropriate
Tort
state
indemnification
Chair
entire
under the
representation
all
county has an insurance
action
consulting
Ord
1166
by
appointed
member of the Board
its
committees
The
Director
may be removed from
County Attorney
by the
Office
of a majority
to
in
agreement
Chief Legal Officer
the
be
established
is
Attorney
the
is
and
county
commissions
department directors and employees and other
the
The
the
persons
07082010
OFFICE ESTABLISHED
25310
defend
boards
officials
entitled
and
Represent
elected
L
Chapter
all
custody
County Attorney
Codify county
1
of
of records
this
including
and other documents
of
formal
ordinances
code of ordinances
as
all
the
legal
written
provided
and
by
Multnomah County
MEmploy
outside
on behalf of
counsel
legal
Chapter 25
necessary
entire
when
the county
the
deems
County Attorney
do so
to
or appropriate
Board may also
outside
employ
it
majority of the
counsel
legal
Sheriff
legal
for
a specific
matter and a majority of the
county
Board may authorize a Board member
entire
District
Attorney
counsel
to
specific
advise
or Auditor
to
the elected
county
matter
county
amount of the elected

appropriated for
no
this
elected
county
committee
The
retain outside
Board
officials
budget
on a
official
shall
specify the
may be
that
purpose With these exceptions

board
official
director
department
employ or be represented
by
or
counsel
commission
employee
shall
other than
the
County Attorney
Ord
Renum7201 07082010
1166
Ord 1090 Amended
03012007 Ord 1024 Amended 12182003 eff 1182004

Ord 943 Amended 02242000 Ord 917 passed 07301998
`
90
Code
230550
Ord 884 passed
07011998
09041997
The
and the office
county
have
shall
TO COUNTY
RELATIONSHIP
25330
an
attorneyclient
of County Attorney
relationship
and
the
purposes
county
entitled
is
to
all
benefits
of the attorneyclient
thereof
For
relationship the county
officials
is
a single
entity
and
collectively
and exercise
Ord
1166
02242000
passed
county
its
elected
and
and appointed
individually
perform
duties
legal authority
Renum7202 070820 10 Ord 943 Amended

90 Code 230550 07011998 Ord 884
`
09041997
Nondepartmental
Chapter 25
Nondepartmental
D
operations
without
EMERGENCYMANAGEMENT
Renum7500
1166
06182009
eff
05262005
Ord 1138
07082010
eff
712009 Ord 1061
712005
to
For purposes
of
this
the
subchapter
following
prepare
respond
to
county
As
defined
ORS 401025
by
emergency
time
to
by
When
respond
the county
cannot
official
communications
available
methods
be
an emergency
Ord 1138
712009 Ord 1061 Renum7901
appropriately
to
Renum27301
Ord
06182009
05262005
eff
712005 Ord 1000 Add 11142002
eff
an Office
is
of Emergency
Management
services
recoveiy
directly
response
The
Office
Office
coordination
and providing
for
the
coordination
the
County The
to
the
for
an
mitigation
emergency
The Office
will
and the Sheriff of
coordination
center
and
and disasters
of the Office
in
emergency
activations
A
material
Establish
federal or
and
state
to
process
as
eligible
Represent
emergency
the
exercises
practice
and employees practice
officers
and supporting operations
agreements
intergovernmental
with
requests
for
other
agencies
and performance matters
jurisdictions
management
within
for
preparedness
to
and
meet projected emergencies
J
funds
Coordinate
to
and apply for
and federal
state
and maintain an effective program
achieve
K
coinmanders
development
Advise
county
during
and
officers
and
an emergency
incident
in
the
of a declaration of an emergency
Serve
as
contact
for
damage
reports during
and immediately following emergencies
evaluation
MMaintain
a plan
for the
collection
and dissemination of emergency incident
county
to
in
conditions
Negotiate
information
Represent
to
necessary
and
personnel
funding
regarding funding
without
and identify
for training
Board approval that further planning
The Director will
needs
for
reports
simultaneously
all
facility
plans
preparing
response
emergencies
Director
Chair
notify the Chair
maintains
system by planning
of
under
I
There
of operations
and conduct
Develop
county
emergency
MANAGEMENT
critical
directing
give
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
25420
each
plans
coordinating
and maintenance
for
continuity
Provide or arrange
these
support
Renum7501 07082010
1166
plans
in
department
review
approval
in
response
department
Chair
ABSENCE
from
F
development
and
reached
and recover
to
or disasters
implementation
EMERGENCY
county
and practices
Adopt operational procedures
Guide each county
apply
emergency
within the
management programs
major emergencies
definitions
maintain
for jurisdictions
emergency
DEFINITIONS
25410
and
Develop
plans
Renum27300
Renum7900
Ord
the
programs
and
for
recommending
to
the
status
Chair
declaration
whether potential or actual
damage
justifies
of emergency
county
N
management
Administer the county
program
emergency
Multnomah County
0
Teams
and
Create
that
Incident
train
Chapter 25
Management
be responsible for
will
designated
interims
and
management
coordination
the
of the emergency
scope
System
b
ICS
by the Board
approved
in
Participating
Incident
Command
by
c
operations
Participating
plan
EOP
county
emergency
ECC
and eventdriven
exercises
activations
Declare
conditions
and
Designate
ICS
functions
individuals
train
to
perform
commander
incident
including
information
planning
operations
safety
as
other
scale
Ord
positions
finance
logistics
may be needed
that
public
and legal counsel
liaison
in
as well
2
to
Seek
deal with
of
state
712009 Ord 1061

712005 Ord 1000 Add
eff
06182009
05262005
eff
for
public
conduct
the
effects
25430
when doing
when
or
safety
of
activities
of
evacuations
mandatory
so
is
for the
necessary
minimize or mitigate
that
an
Designate
area within
the
or
county
jurisdiction
which the county
an
emergency
exercise
may
police
area
Fix the
of the area
the case
of
warrants
any disaster
COMMAND
INCIDENT
from
are not adequate
of the emergency
11142002
such
emergency
and other individuals
over
Renum7902Amd
requiring
3
residents
necessary
efficient
large
RenumAmd27302
Renum7502 07082010
1166
as defined
an emergency proclamation
Governor when local resources
the
event
Ord 1138
exist
declaration
Order
the
designated
of emergency
state
when
law
state
training
in
Sheriffs
Center
operations
within
the
designated
to
has authority
interim
Chairs
the
Chairs
the
in
or
absence or inability
Incident
an Emergency Coordination
plan
absence or inability
the Sheriffs
in
interim
ECC
environment
in
Nondepartmental
the exercise
SYSTEM
limit
catastrophe
or
of emergency
in
disorder
civil
control
in
that
the public
interest
6
Management designated
management
7
The
Board adopts
System
ICS
System
tools
the National
NIMS
Incident
These are the preferred incident

into
all
area
county
Publicly
and operations plans

Ord 1166 Renum7503 07082010 Ord 1138
emergency
remain an emergency
will
and will be integrated
which the area
Fix the time during
and the Incident Command
announce
or proclaim
curfew
response
for
RenumAmd27303
the
Renurn7903Arnd
persons
11142002
other
06182009
05262005
712009 Ord 1061

712005 Ord 1000 Add
eff
eff
area
fixes
that
other than
prohibited
from
public
the
hours
authorized
being
places
on
without
during
official
the
which
all
personnel are
streets
in
parks
authorization
or
of the
Sheriff
SUCCESSION AUTHORITY
25440
inability
A
The
to
Chair
perform
or
the
in
the
Chairs
functions
absence
or
of the office
most senior member of the Board or
in
the
the senior
Board members absence or inability the Sheriff or
S1
2011
8
emergency
Implement
operations
authority
assigned
by
the
plan
9
emergency
Commit
county
resources
response restoration or recovery
for
Chapter 25
Nondepartmental
emergency
10
Redirect
funds
county
procedures
11
Suspend
executive
in
with the
coping
rule guideline or
State
known
the
needed
supplies
emergency equipment
accomplish
to
emergency
remain
5
State
the duration
the area will
that
an emergency area
in
action
hinder or delay necessary
way prevent
any
code
county
any
rule administrative
compliance with such provision would
if
and
tasks
resolution
practice
for
and suspend standard county procurement
use
until
emergency
The
the
declaration
emergency
Chair
that
finds
will
continue
conditions
emergency
no
employees terminated
The
longer exist
12
to
Direct
perform or
and
officers
county
facilitate
days
declaration
Act
on
appropriate
commandeer
compensation
or
for
requests
utilize
any
private
emergency
deemed necessary
if
property
to
cope with the
Prescribe
Ord 1000 Add 11142002
REGULATION OF PERSONS
AND PROPERTY
25460
modes of
evacuation
and destinations
within the
in
connection
with
When
county
an emergency
the Chair has authority
15
address
and
The
limited
powers of
those
to
granted
of succession
available
emergency
Ord
the
1181
07082010
following
is
to
is
the
by
Chairs
this
only
the Chair
duties
or
are
is
able
until
the
abated
eff
712005
emergency exists
the
determines
document
that
declaring
state
State the nature
Designate
impacted
county
assessment
of the emergency
the geographic
Prohibit
or
in
limit
the
public
boundaries
Suspend
the
area
number of persons
who
places
Suspend
or
of alcoholic beverages
sale
restrict
the
of gasoline
sale
or
flammable or combustible liquids
Suspend
or
limit
the
sale
dispensing
or
transportation
of any firearm or explosives on roads
streets public
places or any outdoor place
Curtail or
Shut
Order measures
suspend commercial
activity
of
down water
gas or
electric utilities
necessary
to
protect
life
or
property
recovery from the emergency
Ord 1166 Renum7507 07082010 Ord 1138
06182009 eff 712009 Ord 1061
or
facilitate
Renum27307
Renum7907
05262005
area
Provide
duration
of
emergency must
the
its
measures within the emergency
congregate
EMERGENCY
the county
may
other
DECLARATION OF
A When
for
impose one or more of the
and the
subchapter
until
the
perform
successor
Amended 04282011 Ord 1166 Renum7505

Ord 1138 Renum27305 06182009 eff
25450
declared
is
to
emergency
712009 Ord 1061 Renum7905 05262005

Ord 1000 Add 11142002
to
necessary
duration
and
Order any other action

alleviate
more than 30
1181
transportation
routes
for
of emergency may be extended
Amended 04282011 Ord 1166 Renum7506

07082010 Ord 1138 Remmn27306 06182009 eff
712009 Ord 1061 Renum7906 05262005 eff 712005
Ord
14
last
may be
by the Board
or terminated
13
of emergency
any time but may not
at
emergency services
state
eff
712005 Ord 1000 Add
11142002
a
including
preliminary or
property
loss
initial
damage
injuries
and
deaths
S12011
Multnomah County
Chapter 25
PRICE GOUGING PROHIBITED
25470
During
disaster
by the Governor
declared
for
by the Chair
and services
goods
EMERGENCY SERVICE
WORKERS
VOLUNTEERS
25490
or
received
designated
an emergency declared
Nondepartmental
The Office will
the value
of emergency
sold within the
maintain
record
workers
service
of enrollment
Each
record
will
ordinarily enrollment
disaster
area
charged
for
may
exceed
not
the
goods and services
comparable
same market area at or immediately
the
in
include
reasonable
any attendant
for
charge
of the goods
the
cost
are
incurred
However
emergency
may
in
the
business
the
in
risk
that
addition
to
necessarily
and
goods
services
offense
the
during
Each sale
emergency
this
violating
or offer
constitutes
provision
for
sale
separate
Renum27308
Remmn17908
Ord
Ord 1138
Renum7508 07082010
1166
06182009
05262005
712009 Ord 1061

712005 Ord 1000 Add
eff
eff
11142002
OF CURFEW OR
EMERGENCY REGULATION
25480
A
curfew
VIOLATION
It
is
unlawful
for
any person
MCC
under
established
to
25440
violate
or
to
any
violate
subchapter
official
measure
any
under authority of
taken
The provisions of
personnel
other
this
authorized
to
be
the
this
do not apply
section
on
the
to
streets
of time
or
for
measures
public
places
during
period
which a curfew has been established
or other
taken
B
provision
Any
of
penalty
not
is
more
county
person
this
jail
provided
than
for
convicted
subchapter
shall
$500
not
for
or
of violating
be punished
by
more than
by a fine of
imprisonment
six
months
or
Renum27309
Renum7909
Ord
1166
Renum7509 07082010
06182009
05262005
11142002
eff
Ord 1138
712009 Ord 1061

712005 Ord 1000 Add
eff
any
which no other specific
in
both
the
the
name and
address
of the
including
changes
in
worker
the
times
of
of assignment
assigned
duty
enrollment
Renum27310
Renum7910
Ord
1166
Renum7510 07082010
06182009
05262005
11142002
the
employer of the worker date of
and authorized classification
duty
and
expenses
and services
procuring
value
the
name of
the
before
received
of the
time
contain
prices
eff
Ord 1138
712009 Ord 1061

712005 Ord 1000 Add
eff
to
and
Chapter 25
Nondepartmental
GOVERNMENT
COMMUNICATIONS
Ord
Ord
Add 04142011
1178
Renurn7560
1166
RELATIONS
Ord 1155 Add
07082010
03042010
25560
OFFICE ESTABLISHED
Multnomah
Office
the
The Director
established
Communications Manager
Office
Ord
is
Communications
County
reports directly
1178
to
the
Director
OFFICE ESTABLISHED
Office
of the Office
The
25610
is
of the
An
Add 04142011
Director
of the Office
Office
is
is
the
appointed
Ord
The
Manager
by the Chair subject
DUTIES
25570
Relations
Government
The
Relations
Chair
of the entire
of Government
office
established
to
Director
consent
is
of a majority
Board and reports directly to the Chair

07082010 Ord 1155 Add
Renum7560
1166
03042010
The Director will
Plan
and
implement
coordinate
county
The Director will
communications with the public and media
Provide
overall
strategic
direction
to
the
A Manage
C
communications
budget
contractors
state
agenda
legislative
by the Board and provide overall

to
Manage
and
federal
direction
set
Communications Office
staff
DUTIES
25620
and other
of Government Relations
the Office
and compliance
Serve
strategic
as
the
lead
state
lobbyist
for
the
county
D
Ord
1178
to
the
Board
C Manage
Add 04142011
relations staff
contractors
budget
Represent
stakeholder
and other
govermnent
and compliance
the
with
county
coalitions
and
meetings
Lead government relations meetings
Provide
regular
updates
to
the
Board
and
staff
Submit a formal annual

the
concerning
the
status
of
all
report
to
legislation
the
concerning
county
Ord
1166
03042010
Renum7561 07082010
Board
Ord 1155 Add
10
Multnomah County
Chapter 25
Nondepartmental
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY OREGON
NO
RESOLUTION
Delegation of Authority to
Make
07037
Fund
Expenditures from the Risk Management
Claims
Settle
and Repealing Resolution 03171

Against the County and Settle and Initiate County Litigation
The Multnomah County Board
of County Commissioners
Fund The
The County has a Risk Management
Finds
of this fund
purpose
to
is
account
for
and reserves for the protection of County assets employees programs and
expenditures
operations
The County Attorney provides

employees and
the
County
is
controls
costs
MCC
County
or
states that authority
its
any
the
to
respect
expand
litigation
and
its
officials
in
and
which
to risk
of claims and litigation
or
to authorize
against the
delegated by Board resolution
defend appear
or
appeal
delegated by Board resolution
the
Board delegated
authority to
County Attorney with
to the
delegated
certain
fund expenditures and settlement
management
the authority
for litigation
Board or delegated by Board resolution
Board
the
Fund
the Risk Manager
to settle
respect
workers compensation
$25000
The Multnomah County Board

1
the
by
18 2003 by Resolution 03171
The Board wishes
claims up to
from the Risk Management
over settlement
when requested by
County Attorney with
to initiating
represents
and legal proceedings
provides that the County Attorney shall initiate
legal action
On December
County
actions
employees rests with the Board or as
MCC 7201H
allows disbursements
and expenses when authorized
7104
civil
all
a party or has a legal interest
MCC 7101B11
for the
legal services
and supervises
The County Attorney

matter or proceeding
is
in
of Commissioners Resolves
delegated
authority to
defend or appear in any legal action
any court or tribunal when requested by the Board Chair Sheriff
or Auditor
The County Attorney

or proceeding
in
or
appeal any legal action
any court or tribunal when approved
by
the
The County Attorney
authority to
initiate
petitions for
is
is
delegated
delegated
matter
Board
authority to initiate
guardianship and conservatorship
that are filed
on behalf of the
Public Guardian
B
Page
of 2
appeals from sanction

Resolution
Claims
07037
Against
the
decisions
Delegating
County
Authority to
and
Settle
and
of the Adult Care

Make
Initiate
Expenditures
County
Home Program
from
Litigation
the Risk
Management
and Repealing
Fund
Resolution
Settle
03171
tax litigation
tax
at
the Department of Revenue and in Federal
Tax Court property
income tax
appeals not personal
and rejections of concealed
appeals in Circuit Court from denials
handgun
license
applications
labor arbitrations
miscellaneous legal actions

departments
where
suits
G
H
the
county
LUBA
decision
ITAX
appeals on ongoing lawsuits
B
C
collection
is
County
case
delegated
authority
to
approve
appropriations for the
and expenses related
to
County
costs
and expenses
to
County nontort
or
its
related
legal counsel retained
is
delegated
employees
in
under
of over
Resolution 03171
this
$5000
to
disbursements from the Risk

following purposes
litigation
MCC 7201M
claims and litigation
against
$25000 per case The Risk Manager
workers compensation
The County Attorney and Risk Manager
settlements
claims in amounts
up
to
must obtain Board approval
the
is
$25000 per
for
all
$25000
is
repealed
22nd day of February 2007
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Ted Wheeler Chair
REVIEWED
AGNES SOWLE COUNTY ATTORNEY
SUBMITTED
Agnes Sowle
Page 2
of
BY
County Attorney
Resolution
Claims
07037
Against
the
in
tort litigation
authority to settle
amounts up
authority to settle
delegated
ADOPTED
all small claims matters are less than
costs
The County Attorney
employees
litigation
Fund within budget
outside
testimony of county
appeals
the
on behalf of county
not a named party
is
small claims court proceedings
Management
including brief appearances
quash subpoenas or to limit
to
The County Attorney
and merit council matters
Delegating
Authority to
County and
Settle
and
Make
Initiate
Expenditures
County
from
Litigation
the
Risk
and
Management
Repealing
Fund
Resolution
Settle
03171

Jenny M Madkour
OSB No 98298
County Attorney
von Ter Stegge
Katharine
501 S
Hawthorne
Oregon 97214
Portland
Telephone
503
503
Facsimile
Blvd
mail
OSB No
032300
Suite 500
3587
9883138
988 3377
jenny
m madkour
multco us
multco us
katevts

Eugene Division

Civil
WILLIAM GRIESAR
Nos
6 13 cv 01834
6 13 cv 02256
MC
MC
Lead Case
Trailing
Case
Plaintiff
DECLARATION OF JENNY
MADKOUR
JOHN KITZHABER
Governor
in
of Oregon
her official
Oregon
official
capacity
JENNIFER
capacity
Health Statistics
DEFENDANT RANDY WALRUFF S

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
INTERVENE IN THE GEIGER AND
RUMMELL CASES
capacity as
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
WOODWARD
as State Registrar
in
her
Center of
RANDY WALRUFF
Multnomah
in his official
IN SUPPORT OF
in his official
and
capacity
as
County Assessor
Defendants
Page 1
DECLARATION OF JENNY M MADKOUR IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT

RANDY WALRUFF S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THE
GEIGER AND RUMMELL CASES
Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
2011
Jenny
Prior to
am
Madkour
do declare and
state
as follows
the County Attorney for Multnomah
my
appointment
County and have held
served as an Assistant
Multnomah
position since
this
County Attorney from
2000 2011
Multnomah
County
Multnomah
Coun
is
home
rule
county governed by the Multnomah
County
Charter
performed
Assessor
within the Department
The
has no designated county clerk
ty
of Assessment and Taxation
The
Assessor
is
which
appointed
is
clerk function
is
headed by the County
not elected
and
is
an
at
will
employee
The
set
duties and responsibilities
forth in the Multnomah
of the County Attorney for Multnomah
County Code and
Resolution
07
County are
037 of the Board of County
Commissioners
legal
civil
Multnomah
County Code Section 25 320 F
services for the county
represents
its
officials
states
and employees
actions and legal proceedings in which the county
is
The County Counsel
provides
and controls and supervises
all
Exhibit
A
6
Under the Multnomah
County Code
Section 25 320
makes the decision to employ outside counsel where necessary
elected
officials
alternatively
majority of the commissioners
may be
No
authorized
county elec
the County Attorney
The County Commissioners and
to retain outside counsel only
ted official
approved by a
or employee can be represented by
counsel other than the County Attorney unless that counsel has been approved
Page 2
if
by
either
of these

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
mechanisms
By
the county
Exhibit
resolution
of the county
commissioners
by the County Attorney must be
initiation
of litigation
on behalf of
approved by the county commissioners
specifically
HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT
MY KNOWLEDGE AND
AS EVIDENCE IN COURT
BELIEF
AND
IS
AND THAT
IS
UNDERSTAND
TRUE TO THE BEST

IT IS
MADE FOR USE
SUBJECT TO PENALTY FOR PERJURY
Jenny
Jenny
Page 3
each
OF
Exhibit
Madkour
Madkour

Multnomah
501 S
County Attorney
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Rm
Oregon 972143587
503 988 3138
500
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
5 2 2014
Subject
Geiger
Attachments
NOM
VON TER STEGGE

H Mary Williams
9 03 20 AM
Sheila
Joyce Anna
response to motion to intervene
response
doc
Sheila
here
clerk
in
is
some
It
draft
doesn
language about the county governance
have
citations
to the declaration
the declaration
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
structure
and related issues
sent yesterday since I don
on the subject of the county
k now what
else
you might want need
The
interest
National
justifying
membership
establish
roles
for Marriage argues that
Organization
intervention
who works
in his
cannot begin to attempt to assert the official
NOM
and government
member
allow
in his
NOM
or her official
capacity
NOM
a matter of
cannot meet
common
sense
its
an
or her official
name
NOM
the clerk
interests
in
its
knows
in
of one person on
argues
capacity as a
supporting
but
member
declaration
Without
justification
its
to
NOM NOM
name
title
the clerk in a
and agrees to
most basic
this
for intervening
cannot be acting in his or her official
fails
of
that
of the instant litigation
the litigation
burden to show
official
protectable
capacity of a clerk without the clerk s
evidence
to provide
to assert his or her official
information
As
fails
has the
it
as a clerk for a county in Oregon
unnamed clerk acts
that this
because
in this litigation
has a sufficiently
it
in
the litigation
capacity
anonymously
In ruling on a motion to intervene
conclusory
allegations
made
Biological Diversity v Berg
conclusory
position
that
allegations
and government
the clerk
officer
citizen
Colon
in
is
member
in
support of
268 F3d 810
support of
its
a district
the
819 20
motion
9th Cir
Without
required
motion
2001
NOM
Here
is
an
NOM
or her personal capacity
1st Cir 1995
asserts
any information about the
of the organization
official
or under color of state
92 F 3d 831
Center for
Southwest
clerk
in his
as true the non
to accept
of which the anonymous
Van Ort v Estate of Stanewich
986
is
intervention
not acting within his scope of employment
54 F 3d 980
court
835 836
acts of state officials
identity
establish
only
A government
aw
9th Cir 1996
in
can
only
acts as a private
citing
Martinez v
the ambit of their personal
pursuits are not state action
Beyond the
clerk
NOM
fact that
s refusal
NOM
has failed to meet
its
burden with regard to the anonymous
to identify the county clerk places the litigants
in
the
Rummell and Geiger
cases in an inequitable
know who
individual
and
position
the anonymous clerk
is
member
responsibilities
the clerk works
of
NOM
is
we
in his
Because
we know
in
types of Counties in Oregon
7 Or App
421
427
1971
035 1
States and of this state
charter counties
to
appointed
political
ORS
clerk
1
2
and statutory counties
The Oregon
Or Const
204 005
Art
Additionally
VI Sec
without approval
home
and a 1973
24 Or App
rule
571
581
over
legislative
the clerk
is
counties
or
Un
ited
authority to
an elected
official
or elected
An
or her position for personal
without approval
organization
state
See Schmidt v Masters
amendment delegates
his
roles
an amendment
by Constitutions and laws of the
by the county attorney
Charter counties are also referred to as
claim to be
There are two
In 1958
the clerk can be either appointed
how an
can
different
county has authority
10 In statutory counties
unclear
have
charters
rule
County
rule
would be barred from using
is
authority
rule
home
not intervene in litigation
it
home
Washington
constitutional
In charter counties
purposes and could
s legal interests
home
a statutory
whom
Those differences
clerks within Oregon
to the fullest extent allowed
clerk almost certainly
commissioners
that
that this
NOM
counties to adopt
See also Allison v
provides
matters of county concern
pursuant
counties power to exercise broad
O RS 203
1976
forms of governance
of
do not
cannot determine the rights
counties in Oregon even have clerks
charter counties
to the Oregon Constitution authorized
all
all
we
Because
the clerk at issue in this case could even
member
not
We
capacity
county governance
In fact
motion to intervene
the identity of the clerk and the county for
different
capacity as a
from one county to the next
law granted
or her official
as a matter of law
of differences
have no opportunity to investigate the claim
Oregon counties have
acting in his or her official
NOM
responding to
of the clerk until
whether or not
determine
in
such as
by vote of the county
NOM
could
represent the
county commissioners
home
rule
or county
charter counties
Statutory counties are also referred to as general law counties or statutory
home
rule
counties
NOM
administrator
what
limitations
may
concerning
litigation
We
s strategic
outside entities
of county officials
Multnomah
County
Dec
Taxation
which
appointed
25 320
The
is
and
an
is
at
the County Attorney
is
within the Department
employee
legal
all
Even employing
official
of
Board of Commissioners
would also be a
official
It
at
The
Assessor
is
County Code Section
represents
County code
officials
its
additionally states
by the Board of Commissioners
or a prior delegation
Sheriff
District
of authority by
violation
that
to employ outside counsel
counsel for the elected
such as the
without the express approval
be
could
actions and legal proceedings in which the
could not represent the legal interests of
County elected
at
of Assessment and
andy Walruff
and the county commissioners may decide
a third party organization
an appointed
civil
ook
has no designated county clerk
Under the Multnomah
The Multnomah
County requires an authorization
alone a Multnomah
Defendant
that
Multnomah Kennel Club
10
performed
provides
represent the interests of the County
law
VI
can
county with power to exercise
Multnomah
only the county attorney
Art
rule
we
of their legal interests by
281 1983
will
Multnomah
Or Const
concern
clerk function
home
a constitutional
but
of county government
to seek and gain representation
headed by the County Assessor
not elected
and employees
county
is
capacity in
the standing of the anonymous clerk
is
295 Or 279
of Revenue
Madkour
to act in his official
one of possible structures
illustrate
authority over matters of county
Department
s ability
determining
matters that impact the unnamed county
County to
issue and the ability
the clerk prevents the parties from
or foreclose the clerk
limit
cannot examine or evaluate
Multnomah
name
to
failure
of Multnomah
an
of
officials
By
operation
appointed
Attorney
of
official
let
or Auditor
the Multnomah
County
County personnel
to use his county position to further a personal political
to
agenda
rules
The
for
clerk
in
on
could be a clerk of a
question
of Multnomah
officials
may be
home
County
rule
Even
county subject to
if
the clerk in question in an elected
barred from allowing outside counsel to represent his official
from the county
approval
NOM
If
governing
had properly identified the anonymous clerk
county
that
code
her official
executive orders
capacity or use
his
consider
or test
NOM
Granting
both significant
reelected
it
there
practical
or her official
remaining
official
actions
at
and personnel
rules
capacity in support
affect
issue and
to
rules
NOM
in his
by a non
of intervention
may
neither the parties nor the Court
while allowing
the clerk in question
as well as public policy problems
NOM
no way for the
for election on the
claim for intervention
parties
or the Court to
Furthermore allowing the clerk to use
unseated
of the county
or
county
thoroughly
claim
could be running
would
is
intervention
the clerk
official
without express
the parties in the Geiger and
structure
administrative
With the name of the clerk or the county
entity
he or she
official
whether or not the clerk could conceivably be permitted to belong to
determine
clerk
interests
to those placed
body
Rummell cases could investigate the county governance
review
limitations similar
May
If
If
20
2014 primary
no one knows the
know whether
his office
to remain anonymous presents
If
the clerk
identity
or not the clerk
for political
Because the clerk
is
not identified
interested
a public records request for more information
official
citizens
is
not
of the
has been
purposes while
anonymous denies the public a meaningful forum to discuss the actions of
and denies the public a mechanism for holding the
an elected
is
accountable
this
public
for his or her
do not even know where to
direct
From
Potter
To
Sent
5 2 2014
Subject
RE
Attachments
JUSTICE
Geiger
you
latest
interest
I
don
would
to
This
draft
is
have
smack
awesome
the
etc
got
ve
in and
the
county
now
where
like
Jenny s declaration
m getting
incorporated
From
Katharine
Friday
need
road
VON TER
May 02
Sheila
Geiger
language
Motion
to
it
in it
into
our draft
subject
to
amended
a TOC
and
to
Intervene
the
response
m attaching
confidentiality
of
the
our common
STEGGE
2014
Mary
include
your information
to
the
top
and
end
of
that
the
much
brief
because
Carol
Anna
would
Also
we
Watson
you ask Carol
might be at
the
TOA
as is
in a bit
response
to
messed with her formatting
s signature block
we
on the
Sent
Potter
Opposition
DOCX
Marriage
signature block
me if
add
Subject
for
etc
length
To
with your excellent
agreement
Mary Williams Joyce Anna
5224191 v2 Geiger 1834
Org
Nat
Thank
H
VON TER STEGGE
10 18 47 AM
Sheila
Katharine
so I
m turning
mailto
katevts
this over
to
the
smart people
now
multco us
9 03 AM
Williams
to
Joyce
motion to
Anna
intervene
Sheila
here
is
some
subject
of
since
don
Kate
von
draft
the
Ter
know
clerk
what
about
It
the
doesn
county
governance
citations
have
else you might want
need
in the
structure
to
the
and
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
declaration
Attorney
97214
fax
related
declaration
Stegge
Senior
katevts
language
county
multco us
issues
sent
on the
yesterday
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
H POTTER
SHEILA
Deputy
993485
Chief Trial Counsel
ANNA M JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
MARY WILLIAMS
911241
Special Assistant Attorney General
Department
SW
1515
of Justice
Fifth
OR
Portland
Telephone
Fax
971
Email
Ave
Suite 410
97201
971
673 1880
673 5000
Sheila Potter
anna joyce
doj state or us
doj state or us
msn com
mary h williams
IN
THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT
COURT

Case
No
WILLIAM GRIESAR
AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS
STATE
JOINT RESPONSE
Plaintiffs
TO THE MOTION TO
INTERVENE
v
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his official
of Oregon
ROSENBLUM
in
WOODWARD
State Registrar
in
her official
Multnomah
capacity as
JENNIFER
her official
capacity as
WALDRUFF
capacity
ELLEN
and
in his official
RANDY
capacity
as
County Assessor
Defendants
Page 1
STATE AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS

INTERVENE
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
MC
6 13 cv 01834
Lead Case
TO THE MOTION TO
PAUL RUMMELL and BENJAMIN

WEST LISA CHICKADONZ and
CHRISTINE TANNER BASIC RIGHTS
EDUCATION FUND
Case
No
6 13 cv 02256
TC
Plaintiffs
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his official
ROSENBLUM
her official
in
her official
in
State Registrar
Multnomah
capacity as
Center for Health
WALDRUFF
capacity as
JENNIFER
WOODWARD
capacity
ELLEN
of Oregon
and
in his official
Statistics
RANDY
capacity
as
County Assessor
Defendants
INTRODUCTION
The
National
proceedings
because
Organization
disagrees with the legal position articulated
it
NOM
behalf of the state defendants
same sex couples from having the
members have a
articulated
valid
by the
basis
Court
of Oregon
treat
NOM
II
a national organization
is
right
to marry
law
This
officer
That said
this
if
who
Page 2
solely
on preventing
nor
its
anonymous
ourt should deny the motion to intervene as
Court wishes to consider
ban on same sex marriage
NOM
arguments
in
the state and county defendants ask that the
as an amicus
NOM HAS
argues that
three unidentified
focused
But neither the organization
TO ESTABLISH ANY BASIS FOR
FAILED
INTERVENTION
NOM
by the Attorney General on
to intervene simply because they disagree with the position
state s chief
untimely and without merit
support
for Marriage seeks to intervene as a defendant in these
it
AS OF RIGHT
should be permitted to intervene in order to assert the interests of
members of the organization
voted in favor of the marriage ban
a county
Accepting

INTERVENE
SW
JOINT RESPONSE
Fifth
Portland
971
a wedding planner
673 1880
and a
citizen
for purposes of the motion that these
Department
1515
clerk
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
individuals
failed
Civ
significant
action
applicant
are met
protectable
to protect
NOM
omitted
matter
delay in moving
Fed
rvention
members have a
Without
a protectable
NOM
NOM
motion and
to
interest
NAACP
is
prejudice
to the existing
413
known
the applicant
that
is
parties
954
parties
interest
two
may
of their interest
in
is
NOM
in
Oregon
internal
requirements
timely because
motion
its
that
this
If
it
knew
closed
is
addressed
Its
case
NOM
the Court
has fai led to establish that any
same
sex marriage ban
its
SW
and
Portland
673 1880
of
intervenors
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
bases
of the district
is
timely
is
any reason for and the length of
JOINT RESPONSE
Fifth
now
the applicant seeks to intervene
See Silver v
Department
it
its
motion should be denied as untimely
when
delay
the litigation
1515
the facts on which
Whether an application
long the prospective

INTERVENE
all
to the sound discretion
1973
resulting
971
is
factors cannot be established
after
S 345 366
how
not adequately represent
that basis
briefing
from any
four
has a
not timely and this Court should exercise
on
that
the subject of the
9th Cir 2006
on which to deny
basis
two months
is
Under the circumstances of
the stage of the proceedings
the delay in seeking intervention
should have
438 F 3d 949
the remaining
the motion
York
measured by three factors
the existing
of the court
a threshold question
New
protectable
significant
summary judgment
Timeliness
or transaction
the Court should find that
sought intervention
after
and
a sufficient
is
factors
deny
timely
consider whether the application
first
motion to intervene
discretion
is
would have to have established
has failed to establish any of the necessary
to intervene
considers the remaining
Page 3
has nevertheless
as a practical matter impair or impede the
Bradbury
to the discretion
left
application
may
interest
its
Prete v
s interest
NOM
to the proper
relating
of the action
This Court should
threshold
the intervention
interest
the disposition
s ability
quotations
court
NOM
sex marriage
as of right or permissive inte
under Rule 24 a
intervene as of right
the applicant
to same
opposition
P 24
requirements
its
to establish a basis for either intervention
To
of
NOM
and share
exist
410
673 5000
knew
Babbitt
or reasonably
166 F
RD
418
TO THE MOTION TO
Ariz
439
US
factors
1994
837
this
citing
1978
Alaniz v
Timeliness
is
not a precise calculation
Court should consider the
Those circumstances include
about litigation
decisions throughout
for either the defendants or for
ban
When
address the merits of the claims
The
continue
their
legal analysis
the litigation
as
much
same sex couples
In other
actually
files
the decisions
concluded
as possible
assessing
denied
the three
of this case
the issues in this litigation
issues raised in these consolidated
are not novel
cases have
participated
of the possible impact on the Oregon same
state
that
NOM
cases in which
including
thus prepared to
defendants also determined that
the marriage ban while the litigation
implementing
own
that
the defendants were
filed
The
and
the case
NOM
was
in
cert
the fact that the state defendants have been transparent
closely because
the Geiger case
9th Cir 1978
Instead
circumstances
specific
presented in other cases across the country
the defendants followed
572 F 2d 657
Lewis Foods
Tillie
was
it
proceeded
was
and
that
sex marriage
quickly
to
appropri ate to
notwithstanding
that
But the defendants have expedited
discriminatory
to minimize the injury
it
move
been
plaintiffs
and other
similarly
situated
Oregon
in
these legal strategy decisions might not become clear until a defendant
cases
a response to a
two months
summary judgment motion But
before
it
moved
to intervene
the morning of February 20
The
2014
in
these cases
state
in
NOM
was aware
of
defendants filed their answer to
which they advised
that
Oregon
would enforce the ban on same sex marriages under the Oregon constitution but would not
defend the ban
After the Answer
to announce
See State Defendants
was
See e g
Perry
Cal
Page 4
continue
but that the analysis would not articulate
2652
States
Organization
to the Rummell
the Attorney General held a press conference
Brief of Amicus Curiae of National
133 S Ct
Marriage United
National
Defs
Aff
publicly that the state defendants would
explain their analysis
filed
Answer
2664
2013
Windsor
for Marriage
to appear in the case and would
any defense to the same
Organization
Golinski v
2675
Ofc
2687
for Marriage
2013
Of Pers
28
and issued a statement
133 S Ct
Amd Com
sex
Hollingsworth
Organization
for
Brief of Amicus Curiae of
Mgmt
824 F Supp 2d 968
2012

INTERVENE
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
ND
marriage ban
knew
sex marriage
And
See Declaration
in fact
of Sheila
or should
have known
NOM
know
did
is
because
Rosenblum
is
legal
prior to filing
that
summary judgment argument
Attorney General Ellen
and said
Attorney General
that
the amendment cannot be supported by rational
His statements were reported
knew
in
the press the
the position the state defendants would assert
motion to intervene
its
position on February 20
said that
duty
constitutional
NOM
4 Ex 3
two months
Mr Brown
Ex 2
with an interest in same
issued a press statement the same day in response
it
her conclusion
in
See Potter Dec
the litigation
before the
wrong
See Potter Dec
arguments
same day
in
dead
it
In
abandoning her
shamefully
Anyone
of the state defendants
to the Attorney General s announcement
Rosenblum
Ex 1
Potter
to submit a lengthy
but waited
memorandum
until
just
38 hours
of law in support of
intervention
Thus
the stage of proceedings
cases have been underway
filed
and argued
secrecy
And
surrounding
continue
position and could have
well
Because
while the cases have
now
had
its
views presented to
to reach
review
factor
the third factor
new
again
and expense and attorney fees
third
there has been no
to this stage
NOM
be a
that
set
was
it
on
judicial ruling
of arguments
they will
solely
all
because
Court through
suffer
why

INTERVENE
SW
rights
In addition
Fifth
673 1880
any delay
if
responses to them
may be
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
in
the
the parties must
and argue the
in
additional
decided not to seek intervention
JOINT RESPONSE
Portland
971
evident here as
time
until
now
the most compelling
the party seeking to intervene waited
Department
1515
is
constitutionality
the reason for and length of delay
courts consider
a timely filed amicus brief
the prejudice of putting
NOM
of th e state s
necessary to continue implementing
its
brief
or the need to
was aware
second factor
delay
a judgment injures the plaintiffs
Page 5
this
to the parties from the intervenors
reverse course
But the
quickly
the ban during the course of the litigation
the Attorney General concluded
s ability
evaluating
moved
even though the
Summary judgment motions have been
for only a matter of months
the marriage ban until there could
Court
weighs against intervention
factor
the state s position either on the merits of the litigation
implementing
Prejudice
first
In
as long as
TO THE MOTION TO
it
did
Silver
1092
1095
2003
166 F
9th Cir
RD
at
424
1991
Officers for Justice v
citing
see also Heartwood
or should have
known
that
caused by the delay against
NOM
Brown
that
the suit could
which would
a sworn declaration
934 F 2d
316 F 3d 694
S Forest Svc
affect their interests
result
has not given any good reason for
has submitted
Comm n
Svc
7th Cir
and remanding to determine when intervenors
vacating order granting intervention
knew
Inc
Civil
intervention
if
he did not learn
that
and to weigh the prejudice
were denied
decision to wait
its
first
until
NOM
president Brian
March 2014
that
the
Attorney General of Oregon and the other defendants in this case were not going to defend
Oregon
That
marriage laws in this litigation
learned the state defendants
NOM
Mot
to Intervene
either
As
described above
position
at
when
ECF No
NOM
isn
In the motion
true
itself
NOM
they filed their Answer on February 24
87
That
closer
is
although
it
is
says that
2014
not the correct
it
See
date
position and pu blicly criticized
it
on February 20 2014
NOM
own
recitation
state
proffered
indicates
defendants
reasons for
that
it
did nothing
summary judgment
answer and the Attorney General
decision to wait
up
And
stake
neither
until
willing
NOM
could
interests
was
mid
March
filed
and was exactly consistent with
public announcement
all
not even
See
NOM
the parties to the litigation
beginning to react until
Mot
their
to Intervene
to wait for
the
NOM
at
Its
to catch
to identify any Oregon members with even arguable interests at
Mr Brown
own
until
testifies
behalf
intervene
he could not
that
now
he has
that
See Brown Dec
any individuals
who were
counsel told him over the weekend
but that his legal
and
find
ascertained
NOM
own
that
internal
NOM
of
has members
processing delays
should not cause the entire case to be delayed
In short
as defendants
Page 6
s failure
to intervene on their
with protectable
though
NOM
only days ago
April 19 that
brief
not a good reason for
is
is
NOM
delay do not state a reasonable basis for delay
its
it
NOM
knew two months ago
knew two months ago
that
that
the state defendants would remain in the case
they had determined they would not and could

INTERVENE
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
not
TO THE MOTION TO
defend the law
all
and
knew two months ago
it
was no
the state defendants that there
oral argument
11 00 p
exercise
night
NOM
that
could
Fed Home Loan Mortgage
Bank
a delay of
236 F 3d 78
offer
ed
own
its
84
brief
two and one
hearing
NOM
But the motion
and
own
its
members do not have any
its
NOM
decision to wait until
Court should
this
Mortgage
inexcusable
until
for intervention
significant
for
Amato
when
untimely
motion
intervention
the other criteria
fail
his
and rescheduled to the
See e g
motion for intervention
file
to ask for
no abuse of discretion
was
months
hearing
motion untimely and
its
the eve of
waited until
it
scheduled
schedule
1st Cir 2009
half
no explanation for waiting to
critical
on
renders
584 F 3d 1 9
2d Cir 2001
But
oral argument be cancelled
to deny the motion on that basis alone
discretion
that
for the law
than 48 hours before a long
parties
file
the Attorney General would argue on behalf of
rational basis
on April 21 to seek intervention
its
determine
less
and to ask that the
intervention
summer so
late at
that
Corp
court to
trial
Deutsche
intervenor
three days prior
to
as of right as well
protectable interest relating to
the subject of this suit
Intervention
in
the transaction
relationship
United
that
400
anonymous members
as true
is
NOM
still
same sex couples
S 517
that
fails
in
some
the subject of the case
to the claims at issue
States
have a
as of right requires that the intervenor
See Silver v Babbitt
1970
Even
Mr Brown
this test
legally
if
NOM
avers exist in Oregon
Oregon from obtaining the
legally
benefits
R D
on the
stands
members have no
Its
protected
166 F
protectable
significant
interest
425
at
interests
and even
protected
of marriage
NOM
has no significant
interest in standing
Donaldson
of three purely
assertions are taken
interest
and no
preventing
in
legal
into the role of an attorney general and defend the constitutionality of an Oregon
rest
with a
citing
his
if
inte
footing to step
law
in the shoes of the Attorney
General to defend the constitutionality of Oregon law
Where
of a state law
General
Page 7
is
state
defendants are
named
only the Attorney General
charged
with performing
all
in litigation
may speak
legal
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
The
Attorney
for the state in her capacity as the state s
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
challenging
for the State s interests
services

INTERVENE
directly
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
chief
law
ORS
officer
ORS
180 060 6
180 210
she has performed
In this case
those duties
She did so by considering the broad reaches of Oregon and federal law as well as the
by analyzing the way the laws of
of Oregonians
and by reaching a considered
federal constitution
the state defendants are charged
her legal determination
reflects
bans on same
Oregon law
with enforcing
is
foreclosed
stable
and
in
Oregon by
lasting
families
same sex partners and
and
their
state
sex marriage
law
that
by extending
their
NOM
and
its
members have no
the Attorney General simply because
Hollingsworth v
represent
Court
interests in
its
Gas Corp
in
arguments
While
fails
defending
ORS
that
NOM
is
Instead
2664
2013
asserts that
it
in
Such an argument
the promotion of
to committed
responsibilities
to married individuals
voice or their judgment for that of
only a state s designated agents
Co
US
386
129
its
basis
laws
149 50
1967
to claim that
in
support
of that interest
NOM
state
general
is
would present
defendants
of Oregon
marriage ban
already been presented to this Court by the
would appear to
offer this

INTERVENE
SW
Court
of
how
is
the same arguments identified
those arguments
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
Fifth
Portland
971
some
with the vindication
arguments could be made
may
the Supreme
describing
to a person seeking to assert
for interve ntion
See
see also Cascade Natural
have already been presented and analyzed by the
what
defendants has been
children
interest
and
their
the constitutionality of
presented by the state defendants without the context

Page 8
with other
they disagree with the chief law officer s conclusions
2652
a sufficient
it
to other state
106 305 5
to substitute
right
to identify any argument that has not
defendants
state
a suit in which a public authority charged
Nor
state
to protect
protections
to deny intervention
consistent policy
already a party
it
133 S Ct
El Paso Natural Gas
public interest
legal
Perry
many
children that are comparable to those provided
children by the laws of this state
the laws that
her legal po sition in this case
offered by
implements the
benefits
all
offered to defend challenges
necessary
is
scrutiny under the
because they would be inconsistent
the primary justification
the assertion that a ban on same
judicial
position on the basis of
Specifically
not be proffered
sex marriage could
For example
legal
the justifications
that
withstand
this state
legal rights
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
fail
when
TO THE MOTION TO
and
considered
in
the
context of Oregon
full
assertions and denials that are flatly
factual
NOM
denies
that
Paul and
See
impossibility
NOM
consider
sexual orientation
Resp
Mot
to
Attorney General
Legislative
in
NOM
protected
it
but
that
Court
unconstitutional
Page 9
just
133 S Ct
it
is
in this
as
it
2652
necessary
the official
California constitution
District
See Potter Dec
interest
in
would
in
in
the
if
not
Support of State
of the Oregon
making the same arguments the
while ignoring the analysis of those
and
case
Arizona 520
2661
2013
decision enjoining
sex marriage
the enforcement
S 43 64 1997
a ballot initiative
of that law
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
not be necessary
Perry
the Supreme
amending the
971
410
673 5000
that
it
the
was
the District Court s case
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
may
on the grounds
in
first
cited in
did not have standing to appeal
Although they had been permitted to intervene

INTERVENE
standing
III
must be met by
Standing
Hollingsworth v
proponents of Proposition 8
not a legally
persons appearing in courts of
in
would have to have Article
It
Article III
And
Court also
this
does not
it
must be met by
for an appeal
to prohibit same
by
take an appeal
could not actually
for Official English v
Perry
for intervention
child
And Oregon does
policy with respect to same
analyzed and rejected
persons seeking appellate review
Hollingsworth v
But under
to Oregon law
because
Arizonans
a biological
unlike the legal analysis put forward by the
ant protectable
signific
is
parents and their kindred
109 050
stated interest in appealing a final judgment
interest
Court found
Thus
state s legal
standing for an appeal of any judgment
instance
ORS
Rummell answer
its
Amd Com
arguments would undermine the determinations
does not have a
in relation
In
as that
child
the same relation to adoptive
making adoption placements
Summ
Attorney General has already
arguments
have a
together
of such parents
child
Assembly about the
NOM
families
for
NOM
proposed answers contain
by Oregon law
contradicted
Proposed Answer to Rummell Pls
were the natural
child
to the relation of parent and child as the adopted
every respect pertaining
adopted
NOM
For example
Ben two men can
a n adopted child bears
Oregon law
Defs
law
TO THE MOTION TO
the
Supreme Court ruled
they would have to have had Article III
that
standing
to appeal
and
that
they did not
The
Proposition 8 intervenors
have standing
individual
way
To have
case
Id
found
133 S Ct
the Supreme Court held
for an injury that affects him in a
relief
2662
at
standing on appeal
has to have a
the litigant
at
the Proposition 8 proponents had no direct stake
of a generally applicable California law
Article III
in
have repeatedly held
how
matter
S 555
the outcome
court
of the California case
to vindicate
that interest
560
of the
the Hollingsworth
the outcome
was
was
the constitutional
too general to support
more
to the extent
it
no
generalized grievance
to confer standing
litigant
state
an Article
and seeking
him than
benefits
it
relief
that
does the public
no
at
case or controversy
III
Just as the Proposition 8 proponents had no direct stake
the California constitutional
the motion because
and tangibly
does not
omitted
Thus
such a
that
insufficient
is
of the Constitution and laws
directly
large
citations
sincere
only harm to his and every citizen s interest in prop er
application
NOM
challenge
NOM
has no direct
on the purported
interest
of
interests
its
in
the outcome of
stake here
as an organization
seeks intervention
has no legally protectable
to assert
To
this
Court should deny
the extent
NOM
bases
its
members the motion
three unidentified
fails
The county
clerk has
constitutional
The
or by county
first
member
There
is
no
challenge
claimed by
no evidence
Page 10
504
only a generally available grievance about government
raising
claiming
also
in
to
standing
We
Id
and
id
And
64
Their only interest in having the District Court order reversed
validity
stake
direct
because
personal and
Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife
citing
Arizonans for Official English 520
citing
that
must seek
a litigant
did not have standing
to same
significant
NOM
that
legally protectable
interest in the
here
is
an
Oregon County Clerk

INTERVENE
if
their
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
marriage were legal
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
by name
county clerk would have any opposition
this particular
sex couples
not identified
971
410
673 5000
n Oregon
There
TO THE MOTION TO
to
is
The
case
Among
full
extent of the evidence
NOM
NOM
NOM
brief
to suggest that the county clerk in question
nothing
in fact
has been authorized
that
group
empowered
is
not to identify the county
it
intervene bears the burden of showing
S v
Alisal Water
NOM
correct
that
in ruling
as true the non conclusory
accept
Ctr
is
for Biological Diversity v
asserts
only conclusory
standing by
way
that
370 F 3d 915
Corp
s officers
Berg
919
other
And
opposes the
plaintiffs
case
rules
the clerk identified
support
intervention
the clerk actually
of course
group
rights
by
NOM
rules
by a non county
asked to assume
even
for
NOM
if
NOM

INTERVENE
whom
that
affect
his
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
the clerk
bid to gain
the clerk has
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
from any
works
clerk
Oregon
executive orders
whether
as a matter of law
or her official
bid to intervene by
Justice
NOM
the clerk actually
had established
Ave
Sw
motion
of this one particular
codes
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
its
to
or her identity
his
that
responsibilities
any authority to use
to consider or test
required
But here
capacity
which
wanted to But without the name of the clerk or the county
way
is
intervention
asked to assume
defined by county
entity
the
court
9th Cir 2001
is
Those differences
would have
a district
without disclosing
and
made any
have b een met
assumptions in support of
is
the
party seeking to
without needing any authorization
the Court
forms of governance
and personnel
nor the Court has any

Page 11
819 20
interests
in
or that any interest
for intervention
support of
the identity of the clerk and the county
counties have different
administrative
in
not explained
has not
it
88
2004
The Court
clerk
But the Court cannot determine the
without knowing
made
and unsupported
issue advocacy
official
county
9th Cir
268 F3d 810
of this unnamed county
a national single
is
The
county
on a motion to intervene
the legal capacity to assert his or her official
through
in that
the requirements
all
allegations
allegations
As such
or the official
ECF No
official
or her role in this
Mr Brown
from
to speak on behalf of a county official
to speak for the county
his
See Brown Dec
capacity to represent the interests of a county
has chosen
showing
even aware of
to this clerk consists of this
relating
Oregon members are a county clerk
s legal
is
way
it
to
has not
that
neither the parties
of this clerk
TO THE MOTION TO
Clerks within Oregon have different
types of counties in Oregon
clerk
is
an elected
appointed
An
or elected
charter counties and statutory counties
appointed
position for personal political
vote of the county
clerk
NOM
clerk
concerning
be
at
Additionally
NOM
County
issue
illustrates
Multnomah
of Revenue
clerk function
is
may
is
Dec
in his
a constitutional
Or Const
281
1983
Madkour
provides
legal
could
represent the
that
it
or county
has the approval
or her official
capacity
home
Art
all
rule
of the
what
in litigation
VI
10 see also Multnomah Kennel
Multnomah
has no designated county
The
Assessor
Under Multnomah
is
6 Exs
which
appointed
clerk
is
not
County Code Section
civil
that
represents
actions and legal proceedings
its
in
offi
cials
which the
Only the county attorney and the county commissioners
to employ outside counsel to represent the interests of the County
Even employing
not represent the legal interests of an appointed
without express approval

Page 12
NOM
without approval by
the clerk prevents the Court from determining
of Jenny
could
is
concern
decide
name
igation
lit
one of the possible structures of county government
295 Or 279
the County Attorney
and employees
county
attorney
performed within the Department
See Declaration
how
unclear
is
has not even demonstrated
County
25 320
the clerk can be either
matters that affect the unnamed county
Club v Dep
elected
not intervene in
it
county has put on the clerk to act
The
the
clerk almost certainly would be barred from using his or her
decision not to
s strategic
Multnomah
could
of course
There are two
In statutory counties
In charter counties
without approval by the county
Here
limitations that
204 005
purposes and could
commissioners
s legal interests
administrator
ORS
pursuant to
official
roles
official
or authority from the Multnomah

INTERVENE
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
A third
673 1880
of
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
party organization
official
Justice
Ave
of Multnomah
alone an elected
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
let
officials
See Madkour
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
See id
Ex
an appointed
If
official
would also be a
it
still
on
to those placed
Even
interests
from the county
if
intervene by
way
Granting
no way for the
parties
intervention
or the Court to
May
But
bid
if
20
would deny the voters a meaningful
capacity
Berg standard
A government
law acts as a private
1996
citing
Martinez v
an elected
interests
support
without
NOM
because
of
official
has chosen
attempt to
its
the clerk
If
is
an elected
the clerk
accountable
official
not re
is
the identity of the clerk
elected
there
is
Furthermore
purposes while staying anonymous
forum to discuss the clerk
is
an
the clerk
officer
NOM
official
actions and would deny the
for his or her actions
is
can only
member
identity
position
establish at
Citizens could
not
in his
92 F 3d 831
Colon
54 F 3d 980
986
1st Cir 1995

INTERVENE
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
member
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
This
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
and government
of
most even under the
of the organization
ambit of their personal pursuits are not state action
Page 13
is
that
citizen
would have no
the clerk has been unseated
Having given no information whatsoever about the
which the anonymous clerk
If
no one knows
know whether
public a mechanism for holding the official
direct
in
2014 primary
allowing a county clerk to use his or her office for political
even know where to
NOM
know
cannot
and public policy problems
practical
county subject to
his official
any authority
or to provide
the clerk could be running for election in the
forgiving
County
Cite
while allowing the clerk in question to remain anonymous would
intervention
NOM
rule
agenda
for
rules
member
of this one
also present significant
affect
County personnel
We
body
governing
not to identify the clerk or the county
would
of Multnomah
officials
be barred from allowing outside counsel to represent
express approval
that
works for a home
clerk in question
to express that clerk s official
he may
of Multnomah
violation
the one anonymous
limitations similar
ability
And
her personal
835 836
9th Cir
job
then
is
in
the
legally
TO THE MOTION TO
The
irrelevant
clerk
and has no particularized
challenge here
personal capacity
as such
interest
NOM
Incidentally
own
or her
in his
will
any
also has not identified
County clerks have an obligation
constitutional
clerk
NOM
remain the same
intervention
the position of any other voter
that
is
related to the constitutional
with the law
the law changes
If
any
says
the obligation
on the clerk
interest
NOM
as
but this
to obey the
part in the
sex marriage that would be sufficient
to support a county
in this litigation
Wedding
interest
to comply
has not explained
of the ban on same
status
in
See section 4 below
case would not have any effect on that obligation
law
is
no
services planners have
significant
legally protectable interest in
the constitutionality of state law
The second member

Brown
also says there
have a
legally
met
Cal Edison
Co
The
ban
interest
couples that
ban
in
some
basis
the
if
who
two women
or
interest
that
the resolution
Lynch
has a religious objection
is
the standard
is
that
of the plaintiff
307 F 3d 794
803
claims actually
NOM
The
related to the claims at issue
will
is
first
planner
future litigation
for intervention
The
potential
when
in this
there
who would
prefer to not provide
of individuals
for a possible effect
is
as of right
down
a ripe controversy
affect
the applicant
same
sex marriage
but
legally
services to same sex
who may have
voted for the
the line might be the subject of
it
is
far
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
not
relationship
too attenuated to serve as a
case

INTERVENE
is
members must
nexus between those claims and any
any greater than the general concerns
place
Mr
9th Cir 2002
has failed to establish a sufficient
of a wedding
of which
to playing any support
But the standard for intervention
or a preference
belief
wedding services provider
claims at issue in this case are the constitutionality of Oregon
NOM
Again
protected
Page 14
protected
is
requirement
two men
have a
the intervenor
that
an equally anonymous
more than one
is
role in the marriage of
is
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
constitutional
The
third
challenge
NOM
member
no
voters have
Individual
particularized legally protectable interest in the
here
identifies
a voter
is
who
voted in favor of Measure 36
NOM
added Article 15 section 5a to the Oregon constitution
assertion that those voters have
textbook
that
generalized interest
Patch
136 F 3d 197
not confer
1986
a voter
sufficient
Van de
s interest
in
is
its
quoted in
S v
is
Alisal Water
of
Tahoe Reg
625 F 2d 886
in this
was
it
Planning Agency
887
lawsuit
And
has not
in
the claims in this case
The Court
those of its
members
of an election
is
1086
New Hampshire
370 F 3d
Corp
ND
And
Obama
664 F 3d
In Drake
78182
or that
it
decision will
shown
interest
that
States citizen
782
at
interest
is
citing
9th Cir
Obama
The harm he
Although Drake
that
664
were not
Even as a voter
election
does
the Ninth Circuit has held
nonetheless illustrates
it
a generalized
at
Cal 1995
792 F 2d 779
generalized
than any other United
is
Fuqua
alleges
a voter
s interests
not enough for intervention
any member has a
significant
protectable
not impair any legally protected interest of
between the prior factor
and the remaining two factors

INTERVENE
interest
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
whether the disposition
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
NOM
or
whether any member has a
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
is
not an
does as an organization
considerable overlap
protectable
1980
9th Cir
a case about standing
NOM
Accordingly
1080
to
an
too porous
Co
its
they have a
that
the Ninth Circuit ruled that voter and taxpayer standing
an election are generalized
is
ac tion
for
are identical
interests
Public Service
Jones 904 F Supp
too generalized to confer standing
There
of an ongoing
support
in fact
beyond peradventure
as of right
to confer standing to challenge President
case
when
the case
in
voter members
settled
the outcome
Bates v
the outcome
9th Cir 2011
intervention
significant
that
It
1st Cir 1998
Kamp
Freeman
has no greater stake
therefore
in
interest
legal
public policy interest sha red by a substantial portion of the population
and Idaho v
F 3d 774
205
a right to intervene
California ex rel
Page 15
concedes
A generalized
920
in
NOM
on which to premise intervention
foundation
that
particularized
of more than one million 2004 voters
undifferentiated
no
provides
which
410
673 5000
of the
TO THE MOTION TO
action
may
adequately
impair the applicant
represent the applicant
three members have
a significant
cannot impair anyone s ability
the members have
ban
NOM
some
legally
sense by the determination
to be
Court
remain the same
interests
those legal requirements
unconstitutional
requirements
The
purported
is
way
but not in any
there
is
change
other members
impairment
this
20
does not have a
or her official
implicates
its
of this case
the Court were to assume
if
may change
duties
that
marriage
affected in a practical
the clerk
as a result of a ruling by
The
s legal interests
clerk
s legal
for issuing marriage licenses
as a result of a judicial determination
suffer
would impair a
The
duties
that
If
the marriage ban
clerk will
the disposition
held religious beliefs
an infringement
in this
legally
The wedding
significant
to insist on every aspect
legally
still
is
follow the legal
interest
way impede
that
And
even
if

INTERVENE
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
Each Oregon
into alignment
the wedding
her ability
See
NOM
to assert th
with
services planner
as a result of the interaction
Mot
between
to Intervene
ose rights through
of impairment
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
interest
There
the generalized interest of voters does not
capable
is
with Oregon law
of Oregon law falling
Moreover
laws
services planner s
protected
laws and any ruling in this case
action will in no
protected
in conflict
of her religious rights
a challenge to the public accommodation
Page 16
any of
case
in this
her personal beliefs might be
public accommodation
amount to a
that
the constitutionality of Oregon
in
arguments are even weaker
right
their individually
someday
Oregon
his
show
parties
no explanation of why
will
But even
no impairment of the clerk
that
each of
interest
has failed to
existing
follows that the disposition
it
to follow the legal requirements
is
citizen
NOM
those interests would be substantially
made
that
interest
interest
its
protected
that
With respect to the clerk
this
protectable
and whether the
interest
its
Because
s interests
to protect
show
has failed to
to protect
s ability
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
at
NOM
has failed to show that intervention
have not provided adequate
The
protected
fourth factor
fails
whether
NOM
claims
will
it
analysis
NOM
If
legally protected interests
represent the applicant s
important to consider
present arguments in support
wh
NOM
at
legally
proposes to add
of Oregon s marriage ban
but
presenting
already
NOM
Neither
interest
the same potential
that
nor
its
does not
inadequate representation
reflect
members have a
legally
protected
interest
the
of a
in
for the marriage ban that the state defendants have
rationales
analyzed in their briefing
NOM
has failed to establish that
NOM
has not
shown
that
in
NOM
delayed
its
the threshold
intervention
judgment response
until
now
And
responses
As
it
adjudication
here
position
in
NOM
that
is
of
course
It
stake
in this
case

INTERVENE
it
knew
SW
Fifth
Portland
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
of
Merrill Lynch
has not done so
file
its
its
own
own summary
and additional
legal
Delay would not be a
arguments
the
particular
the Attorney General s
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
question
delay and prejudice
chose not to and should not be rewarded for
971
common
could have filed one on April 22
it
must show
still
by having unreasonably
and for an additional hearing on
rights at
Although the
Blum
seeking a lengthy delay to
had acted with reasonable speed when
February
NOM
2013
9th Cir
seeks would substantially and unduly
of the constitutional
if
NOM
and the main action
element of timeliness
despite averring
the intervention
1353
and
FOR
either
an applicant
a timely motion
claim or defense
delays for the other parties
a result
712 F 3d 1349
Smith Inc
fails
as of right
for permissive intervention
jurisdiction
between the movant
Pierce Fenner
qualifies
it
allowing permissive intervention
an independent ground for
fact
to intervention
entitled
is
FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY BASIS

PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION
Court has greater discretion
law and
it
NOM HAS
III
factor
to presenting those same arguments but removing
are limiting
s efforts
the state defendants also presented
protected
legally
Page 17
is
any
adequately
parties
it
necessary because the state defendants
of
to identify any arguments that have not already been put before this Court by the state
defendants
existing
In analyzing this factor
interest
to the litigation
is
is
representation
its
delay by obtaining
its
TO THE MOTION TO
own
separate
plaintiffs
schedule
its
own
hearing on
is
also not at
in this
jurisdiction
all
clear that this
The Court
case
Court has an independent
cannot allow intervention
nor does
it
have any So any
stated affirmative defense
defendant actively
Nos
own
And
an assertion
defenses
denies
state
NOM
s jurisdiction
NOM
nor does
here
the plaintiffs
Page 18
its
one can conclude
make
has not stated any
defenses
come
only
ECF
49
into the case to
make
its
defendants had
marriage will not be
see Proposed
Its
here unless a
two proposed Answers
desire to
that
its
a ffected by
Rummell Answer
at
are legal arguments already presented to this
simply wishes to
explain
it
over
NOM
Presumably
would have to have som e
NOM
or
members
its
in
for
make them
without the accompanying
no purchase
here
because
as a private attorney general
NOM
when
desired role in the litigation
its
NOM
articulable
NOM
And
issue and no right to defend those laws
defendants
NOM
of fact that the existing
allegations
would be able to have a relevant defense to
claim here against
serve
has independent grounds for
of fered by the state defendants
clear
NOM
NOM
consist of
wishes to
NOM
defendants
But the Court
give
decision on the
later
for jurisdiction over
no case or controversy
is
with a genderless definition of marriage
the legal arguments
legal analysis
specific
it
Civ P 82
See
claims
unless
basis
would have to derive from
there
that
then
that
Fed
jurisdiction
the plaintiffs
NOM
e g
Court by the
NOM
is
arguments and to deny
legal
experiments
fights
NOM
87 and 89
admitted
and a
because the Rules of Civil Procedure cannot
over the interveno r s claims or defenses
themselves extend federal court jurisdiction
claims
own arguments
its
rights
It
NOM
briefing
that
to permissively
But the
This Court could not resolve the legal question
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
don
such
that
have any
of the state laws at
is
speaking
and no
right
to
for the state
or grant relief in this case by ordering
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
NOM
party standing
the actual Attorney General
1515
all
claims against the actual defendants
has no basis for third

INTERVENE
plaintiffs
has no role in the enforcement
the plaintiffs
not at
intervene as a defendant
federal claim against
claim
is
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
NOM
arise
as discussed
NOM
above
and
new
with enforcing
sought marriage licenses
defendant
simply because
There being no grounds for
Court should deny
have no
NOM
Court
NOM
to speak for the
deadline of April 1
many arguments
as
it
It
does not have a
does not
like
basis
the existing
parties
permissive intervention
either
challenge
assessor
to force
its
they think
way
from
the
whom
into this case
analysis
or intervention
as of right
this
file
an amicus
brief
to hear on the question of whether
States
Windsor
state
civil
In fact
rights
the Supreme Court recently recognized
assuring the adversarial presentation
of the issues
133 S Ct
2675
2687
in
by the
of the law
2013
County Assessor made the same determination
wish to consider written arguments
other cases
in
support
which are addressed
in
of the ban
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
in
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
in
of the
its
addition to those
made
summary judgment
While the defendants see no
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
The Court may
the state de fendants
response and in the written decisions and briefs from other states

INTERVENE
sex
the
defendants determined that they could not and would not argue in support
The Multnomah
by defendants
by the
the Oregon ban on same
of amici curiae prepared to defend with vigor the constitutionality
participation
discretion
which to prepare and
in
chose not to
may wish
value that amicus can serve
The
notice
and county defendants have no objection to the Court considering as
state
Oregonians
marriage violates
United
it
and the county
laws
that
motion to intervene
also had six weeks
That said the
Page 19
legal right
roles in this constitutional
the relevant
NOM
would
that
issue in this case
members
its
against the plaintiffs
THOSE INTERESTS NOM HAS ARTICULATED COULD BE SERVED BY

PERMITTING IT TO APPEAR AS AN AMICUS
IV
ban
challenge at
There are only two defensive
defendants charged
the plaintiffs
as a
have any counterclaim
defendants or to step into the Attorney General s shoes to assert the defenses
she should be making
state
NOM
out of the single constitutional
And
state
Nor does
to do anything
TO THE MOTION TO
obligation
accept
for the Court to do so
NOM
If
condition
brief
arguments as a
particularly late
NOM
that
NOM
brief
the defendants would ask that
not cause any further delay in the litigation
advised in
by April 22
to the Court upon
DATED
defer to a decision by this Court to
amicus
filed
the Court wants to hear those arguments
written brief
opposition
they would respectfully
DATE
see
its
Mot
motion
that
it
to Intervene
was
at
in
prepared to
so
do so on the
the course of submitting a
file
summary judgment
should have no trouble
it
it
submitting that
demand
DATE
Respectfully
submitted
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
H POTTER
SHEILA
Deputy
993485
Chief Trial Counsel
ANNA M JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
MARY WILLIAMS
911241

Attorneys
Trial
sheila
potter
anna joyce
doj state or us
doj state or us
mary h williams
msn com
Of Attorneys for State Defendants
Page 20

INTERVENE
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
From
Joyce Anna
To
Katharine
CC
Mary Williams
Sent
5 2 2014 10 22 56
Subject
FW
Attachments
JUSTICE
VON TER STEGGE
Geiger
multco us
katevts
msn com
williams
AM
5224191 v2 Geiger 1834
Org
Nat
mary h
for
Opposition
Motion
to
to
Intervene
DOCX
Marriage
There s a blank cite on the top of page 12

that says
personnel rules for the person to further a political
that it
agenda
would be a violation of
Any cite you can share with us
for that
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
Sheila
May 02
2014
10 19 AM
To
Subject
RE
Geiger
response
to
Thank
ve
you
latest
interest
I
don
would
to
This
draft
is
awesome
agreement
have
smack
with your excellent
the
etc
got
in and
add
the
county
length
now
where
like
Jenny s declaration
m getting
From
Katharine
Friday
language
need
road
VON TER
May 02
it
in it
into
our draft
subject
to
amended
a TOC
and
the
response
m attaching
confidentiality
of
the
our common
include
your information
to
the
top
and
end
of
that
the
much
brief
because
Carol
Anna
would
Also
we
Watson
you ask Carol
might be at
the
TOA
as is
in a bit
STEGGE
2014
To
Potter Sheila H
Mary
Subject
Geiger
response
to
s signature block
we
on the
Sent
incorporated
Anna
etc
signature block
me if
Mary Williams
Joyce
motion to intervene
so I
mailto
m turning
katevts
this over
to
the
smart people
now
multco us
9 03 AM
Williams
Joyce Anna
to motion to intervene
Sheila
here is
subject
some draft language

of the county clerk
since
don
Kate
von
Ter
know
county
t have
else you might want
governance
citations
need
in the
structure and related issues on the

to the declaration I sent yesterday
declaration
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
what
about the
It doesn
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
H POTTER
SHEILA
Deputy
993485
Chief Trial Counsel
ANNA M JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
MARY WILLIAMS
911241
Department
SW
1515
of Justice
Fifth
OR
Portland
Telephone
Fax
971
Email
Ave
Suite 410
97201
971
673 1880
673 5000
Sheila Potter
anna joyce
doj state or us
doj state or us
msn com
mary h williams
IN
THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT
COURT

Case
No
WILLIAM GRIESAR
AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS
STATE
JOINT RESPONSE
Plaintiffs
TO THE MOTION TO
INTERVENE
v
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his official
of Oregon
ROSENBLUM
in
WOODWARD
State Registrar
in
her official
Multnomah
capacity as
JENNIFER
her official
capacity as
WALDRUFF
capacity
ELLEN
and
in his official
RANDY
capacity
as
County Assessor
Defendants
Page 1

INTERVENE
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
MC
6 13 cv 01834
Lead Case
TO THE MOTION TO

EDUCATION FUND
Case
No
6 13 cv 02256
TC
Plaintiffs
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his official
ROSENBLUM
her official
in
her official
in
State Registrar
Multnomah
capacity as
Center for Health
WALDRUFF
capacity as
JENNIFER
WOODWARD
capacity
ELLEN
of Oregon
and
in his official
Statistics
RANDY
capacity
as
County Assessor
Defendants
INTRODUCTION
The
National
proceedings
because
Organization
disagrees with the legal position articulated
it
NOM
behalf of the state defendants
same sex couples from having the
members have a
articulated
valid
by the
basis
Court
of Oregon
treat
NOM
II
a national organization
is
right
to marry
law
This
officer
That said
this
if
who
Page 2
solely
on preventing
nor
its
anonymous
ourt should deny the motion to intervene as
Court wishes to consider
NOM
arguments
in
the state and county defendants ask that the
as an amicus
NOM HAS
argues that
three unidentified
focused
But neither the organization
TO ESTABLISH ANY BASIS FOR
FAILED
INTERVENTION
NOM
by the Attorney General on
to intervene simply because they disagree with the position
state s chief
untimely and without merit
support
for Marriage seeks to intervene as a defendant in these
it
AS OF RIGHT
should be permitted to intervene in order to assert the interests of
members of the organization
voted in favor of the marriage ban
a county
Accepting

INTERVENE
SW
JOINT RESPONSE
Fifth
Portland
971
a wedding planner
673 1880
and a
citizen
for purposes of the motion that these
Department
1515
clerk
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
individuals
failed
Civ
significant
action
applicant
are met
protectable
to protect
NOM
omitted
matter
delay in moving
Fed
rvention
members have a
Without
a protectable
NOM
NOM
motion and
to
interest
NAACP
is
prejudice
to the existing
413
known
the applicant
that
is
parties
954
parties
interest
two
may
of their interest
in
is
NOM
in
Oregon
internal
requirements
timely because
motion
its
that
this
If
it
knew
closed
is
addressed
Its
case
NOM
the Court
has fai led to establish that any
same
sex marriage ban
its
SW
and
Portland
673 1880
of
intervenors
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
bases
of the district
is
timely
is
any reason for and the length of
JOINT RESPONSE
Fifth
now
See Silver v
Department
it
its
motion should be denied as untimely
when
delay
the litigation
1515
the facts on which
long the prospective

INTERVENE
all
to the sound discretion
1973
resulting
971
is
factors cannot be established
after
S 345 366
how
not adequately represent
that basis
briefing
from any
four
has a
not timely and this Court should exercise
on
that
the subject of the
9th Cir 2006
on which to deny
basis
two months
is
Under the circumstances of
the stage of the proceedings
the delay in seeking intervention
should have
438 F 3d 949
the remaining
the motion
York
measured by three factors
the existing
of the court
a threshold question
New
protectable
significant
summary judgment
Timeliness
or transaction
the Court should find that
sought intervention
after
and
a sufficient
is
factors
deny
timely
consider whether the application
first
motion to intervene
discretion
is
would have to have established
has failed to establish any of the necessary
to intervene
considers the remaining
Page 3
has nevertheless
as a practical matter impair or impede the
Bradbury
to the discretion
left
application
may
interest
its
Prete v
s interest
NOM
to the proper
relating
of the action
This Court should
threshold
the intervention
interest
the disposition
s ability
quotations
court
NOM
sex marriage
as of right or permissive inte
under Rule 24 a
intervene as of right
the applicant
to same
opposition
P 24
requirements
its
to establish a basis for either intervention
To
of
NOM
and share
exist
410
673 5000
knew
Babbitt
or reasonably
166 F
RD
418
TO THE MOTION TO
Ariz
439
US
factors
1994
837
this
citing
1978
Alaniz v
Timeliness
is
not a precise calculation
Court should consider the
Those circumstances include
about litigation
decisions throughout
for either the defendants or for
ban
When
address the merits of the claims
The
continue
their
legal analysis
the litigation
as
much
same sex couples
In other
actually
files
the decisions
concluded
as possible
assessing
denied
the three
of this case
the issues in this litigation
issues raised in these consolidated
are not novel
cases have
participated
of the possible impact on the Oregon same
state
that
NOM
cases in which
including
thus prepared to
defendants also determined that
the marriage ban while the litigation
implementing
own
that
the defendants were
filed
The
and
the case
NOM
was
in
cert
the fact that the state defendants have been transparent
closely because
the Geiger case
9th Cir 1978
Instead
circumstances
specific
presented in other cases across the country
the defendants followed
572 F 2d 657
Lewis Foods
Tillie
was
it
proceeded
was
and
that
sex marriage
quickly
to
appropri ate to
notwithstanding
that
But the defendants have expedited
discriminatory
to minimize the injury
it
move
been
plaintiffs
and other
similarly
situated
Oregon
in
these legal strategy decisions might not become clear until a defendant
cases
a response to a
two months
summary judgment motion But
before
it
moved
to intervene
the morning of February 20
The
2014
in
these cases
state
in
NOM
was aware
of
defendants filed their answer to
which they advised
that
Oregon
would enforce the ban on same sex marriages under the Oregon constitution but would not
defend the ban
After the Answer
to announce
See State Defendants
was
See e g
Perry
Cal
Page 4
continue
but that the analysis would not articulate
2652
States
Organization
to the Rummell
the Attorney General held a press conference
133 S Ct
Marriage United
National
Defs
Aff
publicly that the state defendants would
explain their analysis
filed
Answer
2664
2013
Windsor
for Marriage
to appear in the case and would
any defense to the same
Organization
Golinski v
2675
Ofc
2687
for Marriage
2013
Of Pers
28
and issued a statement
133 S Ct
Amd Com
sex
Hollingsworth
Organization
for
Brief of Amicus Curiae of
Mgmt
824 F Supp 2d 968
2012

INTERVENE
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
ND
marriage ban
knew
sex marriage
And
See Declaration
in fact
of Sheila
or should
have known
NOM
know
did
is
because
Rosenblum
is
legal
prior to filing
that
summary judgment argument
and said
Attorney General
that
the amendment cannot be supported by rational
His statements were reported
knew
in
the press the
the position the state defendants would assert
motion to intervene
its
position on February 20
said that
duty
constitutional
NOM
4 Ex 3
two months
Mr Brown
Ex 2
with an interest in same
issued a press statement the same day in response
it
her conclusion
in
See Potter Dec
the litigation
before the
wrong
See Potter Dec
arguments
same day
in
dead
it
In
abandoning her
shamefully
Anyone
to the Attorney General s announcement
Rosenblum
Ex 1
Potter
to submit a lengthy
but waited
memorandum
until
just
38 hours
of law in support of
intervention
Thus
the stage of proceedings
cases have been underway
filed
and argued
secrecy
And
surrounding
continue
position and could have
well
Because
while the cases have
now
had
its
views presented to
to reach
review
factor
the third factor
new
again
and expense and attorney fees
third
there has been no
to this stage
NOM
be a
that
set
was
it
on
judicial ruling
of arguments
they will
solely
all
because
Court through
suffer
why

INTERVENE
SW
rights
In addition
Fifth
673 1880
any delay
if
responses to them
may be
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
in
the
the parties must
and argue the
in
additional
decided not to seek intervention
JOINT RESPONSE
Portland
971
evident here as
time
until
now
the most compelling
the party seeking to intervene waited
Department
1515
is
constitutionality
the reason for and length of delay
courts consider
a timely filed amicus brief
the prejudice of putting
NOM
of th e state s
necessary to continue implementing
its
brief
or the need to
was aware
second factor
delay
a judgment injures the plaintiffs
Page 5
this
to the parties from the intervenors
reverse course
But the
quickly
the ban during the course of the litigation
the Attorney General concluded
s ability
evaluating
moved
even though the
Summary judgment motions have been
for only a matter of months
the marriage ban until there could
Court
weighs against intervention
factor
the state s position either on the merits of the litigation
implementing
Prejudice
first
In
as long as
TO THE MOTION TO
it
did
Silver
1092
1095
2003
166 F
9th Cir
RD
at
424
1991
Officers for Justice v
citing
see also Heartwood
or should have
known
that
caused by the delay against
NOM
Brown
that
the suit could
which would
a sworn declaration
934 F 2d
316 F 3d 694
S Forest Svc
affect their interests
result
has not given any good reason for
has submitted
Comm n
Svc
7th Cir
and remanding to determine when intervenors
vacating order granting intervention
knew
Inc
Civil
intervention
if
he did not learn
that
and to weigh the prejudice
were denied
decision to wait
its
first
until
NOM
president Brian
March 2014
that
the
Attorney General of Oregon and the other defendants in this case were not going to defend
Oregon
That
NOM
Mot
to Intervene
either
As
described above
position
at
when
ECF No
NOM
isn
In the motion
true
itself
NOM
they filed their Answer on February 24
87
That
closer
is
although
it
is
says that
2014
not the correct
it
See
date
position and pu blicly criticized
it
on February 20 2014
NOM
own
recitation
state
proffered
indicates
defendants
reasons for
that
it
did nothing
summary judgment
answer and the Attorney General
decision to wait
up
And
stake
neither
until
willing
NOM
could
interests
was
mid
March
filed
and was exactly consistent with
public announcement
all
not even
See
NOM
the parties to the litigation
beginning to react until
Mot
their
to Intervene
to wait for
the
NOM
at
Its
to catch
to identify any Oregon members with even arguable interests at
Mr Brown
own
until
testifies
behalf
intervene
he could not
that
now
he has
that
See Brown Dec
any individuals
who were
counsel told him over the weekend
but that his legal
and
find
ascertained
NOM
own
that
internal
NOM
of
has members
processing delays
should not cause the entire case to be delayed
In short
as defendants
Page 6
s failure
to intervene on their
with protectable
though
NOM
only days ago
April 19 that
brief
not a good reason for
is
is
NOM
delay do not state a reasonable basis for delay
its
it
NOM
knew two months ago
knew two months ago
that
that
the state defendants would remain in the case
they had determined they would not and could

INTERVENE
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
not
TO THE MOTION TO
defend the law
all
and
knew two months ago
it
was no
the state defendants that there
oral argument
11 00 p
exercise
night
NOM
that
could
Fed Home Loan Mortgage
Bank
a delay of
236 F 3d 78
offer
ed
own
its
84
brief
two and one
hearing
NOM
But the motion
and
own
its
members do not have any
its
NOM
decision to wait until
Court should
this
Mortgage
inexcusable
until
for intervention
significant
for
Amato
when
untimely
motion
intervention
the other criteria
fail
his
and rescheduled to the
See e g
file
to ask for
no abuse of discretion
was
months
hearing
motion untimely and
its
the eve of
waited until
it
scheduled
schedule
1st Cir 2009
half
no explanation for waiting to
critical
on
renders
584 F 3d 1 9
2d Cir 2001
But
oral argument be cancelled
to deny the motion on that basis alone
discretion
that
for the law
than 48 hours before a long
parties
file
the Attorney General would argue on behalf of
rational basis
on April 21 to seek intervention
its
determine
less
and to ask that the
intervention
summer so
late at
that
Corp
court to
trial
Deutsche
intervenor
three days prior
to
as of right as well
protectable interest relating to
the subject of this suit
Intervention
in
the transaction
relationship
United
that
400
anonymous members
as true
is
NOM
still
same sex couples
S 517
that
fails
in
some
the subject of the case
to the claims at issue
States
have a
as of right requires that the intervenor
See Silver v Babbitt
1970
Even
Mr Brown
this test
legally
if
NOM
avers exist in Oregon
Oregon from obtaining the
legally
benefits
R D
on the
stands
members have no
Its
protected
166 F
protectable
significant
interest
425
at
interests
and even
protected
of marriage
NOM
has no significant
interest in standing
Donaldson
of three purely
assertions are taken
interest
and no
preventing
in
legal
into the role of an attorney general and defend the constitutionality of an Oregon
rest
with a
citing
his
if
inte
footing to step
law
in the shoes of the Attorney
General to defend the constitutionality of Oregon law
Where
of a state law
General
Page 7
is
state
defendants are
named
only the Attorney General
charged
with performing
all
in litigation
may speak
legal
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
The
Attorney
for the state in her capacity as the state s
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
challenging
for the State s interests
services

INTERVENE
directly
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
chief
law
ORS
officer
ORS
180 060 6
180 210
she has performed
In this case
those duties
She did so by considering the broad reaches of Oregon and federal law as well as the
by analyzing the way the laws of
of Oregonians
and by reaching a considered
the state defendants are charged
her legal determination
reflects
bans on same
Oregon law
with enforcing
is
foreclosed
stable
and
in
Oregon by
lasting
families
same sex partners and
and
their
state
sex marriage
law
that
by extending
their
NOM
and
its
members have no
the Attorney General simply because
Hollingsworth v
represent
Court
interests in
its
Gas Corp
in
arguments
While
fails
defending
ORS
that
NOM
is
Instead
2664
2013
asserts that
it
in
Such an argument
the promotion of
to committed
responsibilities
to married individuals
voice or their judgment for that of
only a state s designated agents
Co
US
386
129
its
basis
laws
149 50
1967
to claim that
in
support
of that interest
NOM
state
general
is
would present
defendants
of Oregon
marriage ban
already been presented to this Court by the
would appear to
offer this

INTERVENE
SW
Court
of
how
is
the same arguments identified
those arguments
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
Fifth
Portland
971
some
with the vindication
arguments could be made
may
the Supreme
describing
to a person seeking to assert
for interve ntion
See
see also Cascade Natural
have already been presented and analyzed by the
what
defendants has been
children
interest
and
their
presented by the state defendants without the context

Page 8
with other
they disagree with the chief law officer s conclusions
2652
a sufficient
it
to other state
106 305 5
to substitute
right
to identify any argument that has not
defendants
state
a suit in which a public authority charged
Nor
state
to protect
protections
to deny intervention
consistent policy
already a party
it
133 S Ct
El Paso Natural Gas
public interest
legal
Perry
many
children by the laws of this state
the laws that
her legal po sition in this case
offered by
implements the
benefits
all
offered to defend challenges
necessary
is
scrutiny under the
because they would be inconsistent
the primary justification
the assertion that a ban on same
judicial
position on the basis of
Specifically
not be proffered
sex marriage could
For example
legal
the justifications
that
withstand
this state
legal rights
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
fail
when
TO THE MOTION TO
and
considered
in
the
context of Oregon
full
assertions and denials that are flatly
factual
NOM
denies
that
Paul and
See
impossibility
NOM
consider
sexual orientation
Resp
Mot
to
Attorney General
Legislative
in
NOM
protected
it
but
that
Court
unconstitutional
Page 9
just
133 S Ct
it
is
in this
as
it
2652
necessary
the official
California constitution
District
See Potter Dec
interest
in
would
in
in
the
if
not
Support of State
of the Oregon
making the same arguments the
while ignoring the analysis of those
and
case
Arizona 520
2661
2013
decision enjoining
sex marriage
the enforcement
S 43 64 1997
a ballot initiative
of that law
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
not be necessary
Perry
the Supreme
amending the
971
410
673 5000
that
it
the
was
the District Court s case
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
may
on the grounds
in
first
cited in
did not have standing to appeal
Although they had been permitted to intervene

INTERVENE
standing
III
must be met by
Standing
Hollingsworth v
proponents of Proposition 8
not a legally
persons appearing in courts of
in
would have to have Article
It
Article III
And
Court also
this
does not
it
must be met by
for an appeal
to prohibit same
by
take an appeal
could not actually
for Official English v
Perry
for intervention
child
And Oregon does
policy with respect to same
analyzed and rejected
persons seeking appellate review
Hollingsworth v
But under
to Oregon law
because
Arizonans
a biological
unlike the legal analysis put forward by the
ant protectable
signific
is
parents and their kindred
109 050
stated interest in appealing a final judgment
interest
Court found
Thus
state s legal
standing for an appeal of any judgment
instance
ORS
Rummell answer
its
Amd Com
arguments would undermine the determinations
does not have a
in relation
In
as that
child
the same relation to adoptive
making adoption placements
Summ
Attorney General has already
arguments
have a
together
of such parents
child
Assembly about the
NOM
families
for
NOM
proposed answers contain
by Oregon law
contradicted
Proposed Answer to Rummell Pls
were the natural
child
to the relation of parent and child as the adopted
every respect pertaining
adopted
NOM
For example
Ben two men can
a n adopted child bears
Oregon law
Defs
law
TO THE MOTION TO
the
Supreme Court ruled
they would have to have had Article III
that
standing
to appeal
and
that
they did not
The
Proposition 8 intervenors
have standing
individual
way
To have
case
Id
found
133 S Ct
the Supreme Court held
for an injury that affects him in a
relief
2662
at
standing on appeal
has to have a
the litigant
at
the Proposition 8 proponents had no direct stake
of a generally applicable California law
Article III
in
have repeatedly held
how
matter
S 555
the outcome
court
of the California case
to vindicate
that interest
560
of the
the Hollingsworth
the outcome
was
was
the constitutional
too general to support
more
to the extent
it
no
generalized grievance
to confer standing
litigant
state
an Article
and seeking
him than
benefits
it
relief
that
does the public
no
at
case or controversy
III
Just as the Proposition 8 proponents had no direct stake
the California constitutional
the motion because
and tangibly
does not
omitted
Thus
such a
that
insufficient
is
of the Constitution and laws
directly
large
citations
sincere
only harm to his and every citizen s interest in prop er
application
NOM
challenge
NOM
has no direct
on the purported
interest
of
interests
its
in
the outcome of
stake here
as an organization
seeks intervention
has no legally protectable
to assert
To
this
Court should deny
the extent
NOM
bases
its
members the motion
three unidentified
fails
The county
clerk has
constitutional
The
or by county
first
member
There
is
no
challenge
claimed by
no evidence
Page 10
504
only a generally available grievance about government
raising
claiming
also
in
to
standing
We
Id
and
id
And
64
Their only interest in having the District Court order reversed
validity
stake
direct
because
personal and
Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife
citing
Arizonans for Official English 520
citing
that
must seek
a litigant
did not have standing
to same
significant
NOM
that
legally protectable
interest in the
here
is
an
Oregon County Clerk

INTERVENE
if
their
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
marriage were legal
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
by name
county clerk would have any opposition
this particular
sex couples
not identified
971
410
673 5000
n Oregon
There
TO THE MOTION TO
to
is
The
case
Among
full
extent of the evidence
NOM
NOM
NOM
brief
to suggest that the county clerk in question
nothing
in fact
has been authorized
that
group
empowered
is
not to identify the county
it
intervene bears the burden of showing
S v
Alisal Water
NOM
correct
that
in ruling
as true the non conclusory
accept
Ctr
is
for Biological Diversity v
asserts
only conclusory
standing by
way
that
370 F 3d 915
Corp
s officers
Berg
919
other
And
opposes the
plaintiffs
case
rules
the clerk identified
support
intervention
the clerk actually
of course
group
rights
by
NOM
rules
by a non county
asked to assume
even
for
NOM
if
NOM

INTERVENE
whom
that
affect
his
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
the clerk
bid to gain
the clerk has
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
from any
works
clerk
Oregon
executive orders
whether
as a matter of law
or her official
bid to intervene by
Justice
NOM
the clerk actually
had established
Ave
Sw
motion
of this one particular
codes
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
its
to
or her identity
his
that
responsibilities
any authority to use
to consider or test
required
But here
capacity
which
wanted to But without the name of the clerk or the county
way
is
intervention
asked to assume
defined by county
entity
the
court
9th Cir 2001
is
Those differences
would have
a district
without disclosing
and
made any
have b een met
assumptions in support of
is
the
party seeking to
without needing any authorization
the Court
forms of governance
and personnel
nor the Court has any

Page 11
819 20
interests
in
or that any interest
for intervention
support of
the identity of the clerk and the county
counties have different
administrative
in
not explained
has not
it
88
2004
The Court
clerk
But the Court cannot determine the
without knowing
made
and unsupported
issue advocacy
official
county
9th Cir
268 F3d 810
of this unnamed county
a national single
is
The
county
on a motion to intervene
the legal capacity to assert his or her official
through
in that
the requirements
all
allegations
allegations
As such
or the official
ECF No
official
or her role in this
Mr Brown
from
to speak on behalf of a county official
to speak for the county
his
See Brown Dec
capacity to represent the interests of a county
has chosen
showing
even aware of
to this clerk consists of this
relating
Oregon members are a county clerk
s legal
is
way
it
to
has not
that
neither the parties
of this clerk
TO THE MOTION TO
Clerks within Oregon have different
types of counties in Oregon
clerk
is
an elected
appointed
An
or elected
charter counties and statutory counties
appointed
position for personal political
vote of the county
clerk
NOM
clerk
concerning
be
at
Additionally
NOM
County
issue
illustrates
Multnomah
of Revenue
clerk function
is
may
is
Dec
in his
a constitutional
Or Const
281
1983
Madkour
provides
legal
could
represent the
that
it
or county
has the approval
or her official
capacity
home
Art
all
rule
of the
what
in litigation
VI
10 see also Multnomah Kennel
Multnomah
has no designated county
The
Assessor
Under Multnomah
is
6 Exs
which
appointed
clerk
is
not
County Code Section
civil
that
represents
actions and legal proceedings
its
in
offi
cials
which the
Only the county attorney and the county commissioners
to employ outside counsel to represent the interests of the County
Even employing
not represent the legal interests of an appointed
without express approval

Page 12
NOM
without approval by
the clerk prevents the Court from determining
of Jenny
could
is
concern
decide
name
igation
lit
one of the possible structures of county government
295 Or 279
the County Attorney
and employees
county
attorney
performed within the Department
See Declaration
how
unclear
is
has not even demonstrated
County
25 320
the clerk can be either
matters that affect the unnamed county
Club v Dep
elected
not intervene in
it
county has put on the clerk to act
The
the
clerk almost certainly would be barred from using his or her
decision not to
s strategic
Multnomah
could
of course
There are two
In statutory counties
In charter counties
without approval by the county
Here
limitations that
204 005
purposes and could
commissioners
s legal interests
administrator
ORS
pursuant to
official
roles
official
or authority from the Multnomah

INTERVENE
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
A third
673 1880
of
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
party organization
official
Justice
Ave
of Multnomah
alone an elected
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
let
officials
See Madkour
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
See id
Ex
an appointed
If
official
would also be a
it
still
on
to those placed
Even
interests
from the county
if
intervene by
way
Granting
no way for the
parties
intervention
or the Court to
May
But
bid
if
20
would deny the voters a meaningful
capacity
Berg standard
A government
law acts as a private
1996
citing
Martinez v
an elected
interests
support
without
NOM
because
of
official
has chosen
attempt to
its
the clerk
If
is
an elected
the clerk
accountable
official
not re
is
the identity of the clerk
elected
there
is
Furthermore
purposes while staying anonymous
forum to discuss the clerk
is
an
the clerk
officer
NOM
official
actions and would deny the
for his or her actions
is
can only
member
identity
position
establish at
Citizens could
not
in his
92 F 3d 831
Colon
54 F 3d 980
986
1st Cir 1995

INTERVENE
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
member
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
This
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
and government
of
most even under the
of the organization
ambit of their personal pursuits are not state action
Page 13
is
that
citizen
would have no
the clerk has been unseated
Having given no information whatsoever about the
which the anonymous clerk
If
no one knows
know whether
public a mechanism for holding the official
direct
in
2014 primary
allowing a county clerk to use his or her office for political
even know where to
NOM
know
cannot
and public policy problems
practical
county subject to
his official
any authority
or to provide
the clerk could be running for election in the
forgiving
County
Cite
while allowing the clerk in question to remain anonymous would
intervention
NOM
rule
agenda
for
rules
member
of this one
also present significant
affect
County personnel
We
body
governing
not to identify the clerk or the county
would
of Multnomah
officials
be barred from allowing outside counsel to represent
express approval
that
works for a home
clerk in question
to express that clerk s official
he may
of Multnomah
violation
the one anonymous
limitations similar
ability
And
her personal
835 836
9th Cir
job
then
is
in
the
legally
TO THE MOTION TO
The
irrelevant
clerk
and has no particularized
challenge here
personal capacity
as such
interest
NOM
Incidentally
own
or her
in his
will
any
also has not identified
County clerks have an obligation
constitutional
clerk
NOM
remain the same
intervention
the position of any other voter
that
is
related to the constitutional
with the law
the law changes
If
any
says
the obligation
on the clerk
interest
NOM
as
but this
to obey the
part in the
sex marriage that would be sufficient
to support a county
in this litigation
Wedding
interest
to comply
has not explained
of the ban on same
status
in
See section 4 below
case would not have any effect on that obligation
law
is
no
services planners have
significant
legally protectable interest in
the constitutionality of state law
The second member

Brown
also says there
have a
legally
met
Cal Edison
Co
The
ban
interest
couples that
ban
in
some
basis
the
if
who
two women
or
interest
that
the resolution
Lynch
has a religious objection
is
the standard
is
that
of the plaintiff
307 F 3d 794
803
claims actually
NOM
The
related to the claims at issue
will
is
first
planner
future litigation
for intervention
The
potential
when
in this
there
who would
prefer to not provide
of individuals
for a possible effect
is
as of right
down
a ripe controversy
affect
the applicant
same
sex marriage
but
legally
services to same sex
who may have
voted for the
the line might be the subject of
it
is
far
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
not
relationship
too attenuated to serve as a
case

INTERVENE
is
members must
nexus between those claims and any
any greater than the general concerns
place
Mr
9th Cir 2002
has failed to establish a sufficient
of a wedding
of which
to playing any support
But the standard for intervention
or a preference
belief
wedding services provider
claims at issue in this case are the constitutionality of Oregon
NOM
Again
protected
Page 14
protected
is
requirement
two men
have a
the intervenor
that
an equally anonymous
more than one
is
role in the marriage of
is
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
constitutional
The
third
challenge
NOM
member
no
voters have
Individual
particularized legally protectable interest in the
here
identifies
a voter
is
who
voted in favor of Measure 36
NOM
added Article 15 section 5a to the Oregon constitution
assertion that those voters have
textbook
that
Patch
136 F 3d 197
not confer
1986
a voter
sufficient
Van de
s interest
in
is
its
quoted in
S v
is
Alisal Water
of
Tahoe Reg
625 F 2d 886
in this
was
it
Planning Agency
887
lawsuit
And
has not
in
the claims in this case
The Court
those of its
members
of an election
is
1086
New Hampshire
370 F 3d
Corp
ND
And
Obama
664 F 3d
In Drake
78182
or that
it
decision will
shown
interest
that
States citizen
782
at
interest
is
citing
9th Cir
Obama
The harm he
Although Drake
that
664
were not
Even as a voter
election
does
the Ninth Circuit has held
nonetheless illustrates
it
a generalized
at
Cal 1995
792 F 2d 779
generalized
than any other United
is
Fuqua
alleges
a voter
s interests
not enough for intervention
any member has a
significant
protectable
not impair any legally protected interest of
between the prior factor
and the remaining two factors

INTERVENE
interest
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
whether the disposition
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
NOM
or
whether any member has a
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
is
not an
does as an organization
considerable overlap
protectable
1980
9th Cir
a case about standing
NOM
Accordingly
1080
to
an
too porous
Co
its
they have a
that
the Ninth Circuit ruled that voter and taxpayer standing
an election are generalized
is
ac tion
for
are identical
interests
Public Service
Jones 904 F Supp
too generalized to confer standing
There
of an ongoing
support
in fact
beyond peradventure
as of right
to confer standing to challenge President
case
when
the case
in
voter members
settled
the outcome
Bates v
the outcome
9th Cir 2011
intervention
significant
that
It
1st Cir 1998
Kamp
Freeman
has no greater stake
therefore
in
interest
legal
public policy interest sha red by a substantial portion of the population
and Idaho v
F 3d 774
205
California ex rel
Page 15
concedes
A generalized
920
in
NOM
on which to premise intervention
foundation
that
particularized
of more than one million 2004 voters
undifferentiated
no
provides
which
410
673 5000
of the
TO THE MOTION TO
action
may
adequately
impair the applicant
represent the applicant
three members have
a significant
cannot impair anyone s ability
the members have
ban
NOM
some
legally
sense by the determination
to be
Court
remain the same
interests
those legal requirements
unconstitutional
requirements
The
purported
is
way
but not in any
there
is
change
other members
impairment
this
20
does not have a
or her official
implicates
its
of this case
the Court were to assume
if
may change
duties
that
marriage
affected in a practical
the clerk
as a result of a ruling by
The
s legal interests
clerk
s legal
as a result of a judicial determination
suffer
would impair a
The
duties
that
If
the marriage ban
clerk will
the disposition
held religious beliefs
an infringement
in this
legally
The wedding
significant
to insist on every aspect
legally
still
is
follow the legal
interest
way impede
that
And
even
if

INTERVENE
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
Each Oregon
into alignment
the wedding
her ability
See
NOM
to assert th
with
services planner
as a result of the interaction
Mot
between
to Intervene
ose rights through
of impairment
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
interest
There
the generalized interest of voters does not
capable
is
with Oregon law
of Oregon law falling
Moreover
laws
services planner s
protected
laws and any ruling in this case
action will in no
protected
in conflict
of her religious rights
a challenge to the public accommodation
Page 16
any of
case
in this
her personal beliefs might be
public accommodation
amount to a
that
the constitutionality of Oregon
in
arguments are even weaker
right
their individually
someday
Oregon
his
show
parties
no explanation of why
will
But even
no impairment of the clerk
that
each of
interest
has failed to
existing
follows that the disposition
it
to follow the legal requirements
is
citizen
NOM
those interests would be substantially
made
that
interest
interest
its
protected
that
With respect to the clerk
this
protectable
and whether the
interest
its
Because
s interests
to protect
show
has failed to
to protect
s ability
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
at
NOM
has failed to show that intervention
have not provided adequate
The
protected
fourth factor
fails
whether
NOM
claims
will
it
analysis
NOM
If
legally protected interests
represent the applicant s
important to consider
present arguments in support
wh
NOM
at
legally
proposes to add
of Oregon s marriage ban
but
presenting
already
NOM
Neither
interest
the same potential
that
nor
its
does not
inadequate representation
reflect
members have a
legally
protected
interest
the
of a
in
for the marriage ban that the state defendants have
rationales
analyzed in their briefing
NOM
NOM
has not
shown
that
in
NOM
delayed
its
the threshold
intervention
judgment response
until
now
And
responses
As
it
adjudication
here
position
in
NOM
that
is
of
course
It
stake
in this
case

INTERVENE
it
knew
SW
Fifth
Portland
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
of
Merrill Lynch
has not done so
file
its
its
own
own summary
and additional
legal
Delay would not be a
arguments
the
particular
the Attorney General s
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
question
delay and prejudice
chose not to and should not be rewarded for
971
common
could have filed one on April 22
it
must show
still
by having unreasonably
and for an additional hearing on
rights at
Although the
Blum
seeking a lengthy delay to
had acted with reasonable speed when
February
NOM
2013
9th Cir
seeks would substantially and unduly
of the constitutional
if
NOM
and the main action
element of timeliness
despite averring
the intervention
1353
and
FOR
either
an applicant
a timely motion
claim or defense
delays for the other parties
a result
712 F 3d 1349
Smith Inc
fails
as of right
for permissive intervention
jurisdiction
between the movant
Pierce Fenner
qualifies
it
allowing permissive intervention
an independent ground for
fact
to intervention
entitled
is
FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY BASIS

PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION
Court has greater discretion
law and
it
NOM HAS
III
factor
to presenting those same arguments but removing
are limiting
s efforts
the state defendants also presented
protected
legally
Page 17
is
any
adequately
parties
it
necessary because the state defendants
of
to identify any arguments that have not already been put before this Court by the state
defendants
existing
In analyzing this factor
interest
to the litigation
is
is
representation
its
delay by obtaining
its
TO THE MOTION TO
own
separate
plaintiffs
schedule
its
own
hearing on
is
also not at
in this
jurisdiction
all
clear that this
The Court
case
Court has an independent
cannot allow intervention
nor does
it
have any So any
stated affirmative defense
defendant actively
Nos
own
And
an assertion
defenses
denies
state
NOM
s jurisdiction
NOM
nor does
here
the plaintiffs
Page 18
its
one can conclude
make
has not stated any
defenses
come
only
ECF
49
into the case to
make
its
defendants had
marriage will not be
see Proposed
Its
here unless a
two proposed Answers
desire to
that
its
a ffected by
Rummell Answer
at
are legal arguments already presented to this
simply wishes to
explain
it
over
NOM
Presumably
would have to have som e
NOM
or
members
its
in
for
make them
without the accompanying
no purchase
here
because
as a private attorney general
NOM
when
desired role in the litigation
its
NOM
articulable
NOM
And
issue and no right to defend those laws
defendants
NOM
of fact that the existing
allegations
would be able to have a relevant defense to
claim here against
serve
has independent grounds for
of fered by the state defendants
clear
NOM
NOM
consist of
wishes to
NOM
defendants
But the Court
give
decision on the
later
for jurisdiction over
no case or controversy
is
with a genderless definition of marriage
the legal arguments
legal analysis
specific
it
Civ P 82
See
claims
unless
basis
would have to derive from
there
that
then
that
Fed
jurisdiction
the plaintiffs
NOM
e g
Court by the
NOM
is
arguments and to deny
legal
experiments
fights
NOM
87 and 89
admitted
and a
because the Rules of Civil Procedure cannot
over the interveno r s claims or defenses
themselves extend federal court jurisdiction
claims
own arguments
its
rights
It
NOM
briefing
that
to permissively
But the
This Court could not resolve the legal question
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
don
such
that
have any
of the state laws at
is
speaking
and no
right
to
for the state
or grant relief in this case by ordering
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
NOM
party standing
the actual Attorney General
1515
all
claims against the actual defendants
has no basis for third

INTERVENE
plaintiffs
has no role in the enforcement
the plaintiffs
not at
intervene as a defendant
federal claim against
claim
is
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
NOM
arise
as discussed
NOM
above
and
new
with enforcing
sought marriage licenses
defendant
simply because
There being no grounds for
Court should deny
have no
NOM
Court
NOM
to speak for the
deadline of April 1
many arguments
as
it
It
does not have a
does not
like
basis
the existing
parties
either
challenge
assessor
to force
its
they think
way
from
the
whom
into this case
analysis
or intervention
as of right
this
file
an amicus
brief
to hear on the question of whether
States
Windsor
state
civil
In fact
rights
the Supreme Court recently recognized
assuring the adversarial presentation
of the issues
133 S Ct
2675
2687
in
by the
of the law
2013
County Assessor made the same determination
wish to consider written arguments
other cases
in
support
which are addressed
in
of the ban
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
in
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
in
of the
its
addition to those
made
summary judgment
While the defendants see no
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
The Court may
the state de fendants
response and in the written decisions and briefs from other states

INTERVENE
sex
the
defendants determined that they could not and would not argue in support
The Multnomah
by defendants
by the
the Oregon ban on same
of amici curiae prepared to defend with vigor the constitutionality
participation
discretion
which to prepare and
in
chose not to
may wish
value that amicus can serve
The
notice
and county defendants have no objection to the Court considering as
state
Oregonians
marriage violates
United
it
and the county
laws
that
motion to intervene
also had six weeks
That said the
Page 19
legal right
roles in this constitutional
the relevant
NOM
would
that
issue in this case
members
its
against the plaintiffs
THOSE INTERESTS NOM HAS ARTICULATED COULD BE SERVED BY

PERMITTING IT TO APPEAR AS AN AMICUS
IV
ban
challenge at
There are only two defensive
defendants charged
the plaintiffs
as a
have any counterclaim
defendants or to step into the Attorney General s shoes to assert the defenses
she should be making
state
NOM
out of the single constitutional
And
state
Nor does
to do anything
TO THE MOTION TO
obligation
accept
for the Court to do so
NOM
If
condition
brief
arguments as a
particularly late
NOM
that
NOM
brief
the defendants would ask that
not cause any further delay in the litigation
advised in
by April 22
to the Court upon
DATED
defer to a decision by this Court to
amicus
filed
the Court wants to hear those arguments
written brief
opposition
they would respectfully
DATE
see
its
Mot
motion
that
it
to Intervene
was
at
in
prepared to
so
do so on the
the course of submitting a
file
summary judgment
should have no trouble
it
it
submitting that
demand
DATE
Respectfully
submitted
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
H POTTER
SHEILA
Deputy
993485
Chief Trial Counsel
ANNA M JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
MARY WILLIAMS
911241

Attorneys
Trial
sheila
potter
anna joyce
doj state or us
doj state or us
mary h williams
msn com
Page 20

INTERVENE
JOINT RESPONSE
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
TO THE MOTION TO
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Joyce Anna
CC
Mary Williams
Sent
5 2 2014 10 34 12
Subject
Re
On
Yes
for
second thought
non elected
all
FW
mary h
Geiger
williams
msn com
AM
response
motion to intervene
to
instead of citing to our personnel rules
perhaps just cite to the state statute that covers this
officials
260 432
of public employees
Solicitation
activities
No
money
of public
person shall attempt to
employees during working hours
or actually
coerce
command
or require a public employee to influence or give
service or other thing of value to promote or oppose any political committee or to promote or oppose the
nomination
or election of a candidate
the gathering of signatures on an
initiative
referendum or
recall petition
the
adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder
No
public employee shall
oppose any
political
signatures on an
solicit
any money influence
service or other thing of value or otherwise promote or
committee or promote or oppose the nomination or

referendum or
initiative
recall petition
holder while on the job during working hours
However
election of
the adoption of a measure

this
a candidate
the gathering of
or the recall of a public office
section does not restrict the right of a public employee to
express personal political views
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
May
Fri
2 2014
at
10 22
AM
Joyce
Anna
anna joyce
There s a blank cite on the top of page 12 that says that

person to further a political agenda
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Katharine
Subject
cite
it
would be
you can share with us
a violation of personnel rules for the

for that
Sheila
May 02
2014 10 19 AM
VON TER STEGGE
RE Geiger
Thank you This
Any
wrote
doj state or us
is
awesome
ve incorporated
it
into our draft response
m aaching
the latest draft with
your excellent language in
don
me
if
condentiality
of our
common
have the signature block amended to include your information
got in and messed with her forma ing that
block to the top and end of the brief
signature
much
Also
Anna
we
interest agreement
because Carol Watson
etc etc
would smack
would you ask Carol to add the county
might be
at the length
nowwhere we
need a
TOC
TOA
and
like Jenny s declaration
m ge ing
From
Sent
To
subject to the
it
on the road
Potter
is
in a bit
so
m turning
VON TER STEGGE mailto katevts

2014 9 03 AM
H Mary Williams Joyce Anna
Katharine
this over to the smart people
multco
now
us
May 02
Friday
Sheila
Subject
as
Geiger
Sheila
here
clerk
in
is
some
It
draft
doesn
have
citations
to the declaration
structure
and related issues
k now what
else
you might want need
the declaration
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Joyce Anna
To
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
CC
Mary Williams
Sent
5 2 2014 10 34 55
Subject
RE FW
Awesome
From
Katharine
Friday
To
Joyce
Cc
Mary
260
STEGGE
2014
mailto
katevts
FW
second
statute
mary h williams msn
Geiger
thought
that
response
instead
covers
to
of
com
motion to
citing
this for all
to
non
1 No
person
shall
influence
or give
committee
or to
signatures
attempt
money
promote
to
our personnel
elected
service
or other
or oppose
on an initiative
otherwise
election
promote
the
rules
perhaps
just cite
to
the
officials
of
petition
during
a candidate
the
working
hours
express personal
Kate
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
However
political
County
Suite
503
mailto
Fri
anna
There
gathering
a measure
of
influence
recall
does
or require
promote
of
the
a public
or oppose
a candidate
adoption
service
or promote
signatures
or the
to
petition
committee
this section
on an initiative
of
a public
office
not
restrict
the
the
of
or other
or oppose
employee to
any political
gathering
a measure
thing
the
of
right of
value
nomination
referendum
holder
of
or the
or
or
or recall
while
on the
a public
job
employee
views
May 2
988
katevts
2014
at
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
rules for the
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
10 22 AM
Joyce
joyce doj state or us mailto

s a blank cite on the top of
personnel
value
or election
or recall
any money
command
of
Stegge
Senior
katevts
of
thing
any political
the
adoption
hours
coerce
nomination
referendum
or oppose
working
or actually
recall of a public office holder

2 No public employee shall solicit
On
intervene
432
Solicitation of public employees

activities of public employees during
to
multco us
10 34 AM
Anna
Re
On
VON TER
May 02
Williams
Subject
state
Geiger
msn com
williams
AM
thanks
Sent
Yes
mary h
person
to
multco us
Anna
anna
page
joyce doj state or us

wrote
12
that says that it
would be a violation
further
a political
agenda
Any cite
you can
of
share
with us
for that
From
Sent
To
Potter
Subject
Thank
RE
you
latest
don
would
to
add
Geiger
This
draft
interest
I
Sheila
Friday
May 02
2014 10 19 AM
Mary
is
awesome
have
the
the
me if
county
etc
motion to
ve
incorporated
got
language
Joyce
Anna
intervene
it
in it
into
our draft
subject
to
the
response
m attaching
confidentiality
of
the
our common
etc
signature block
I
Williams
to
with your excellent
agreement
smack
response
in and
amended
to
include
your information
s signature block
to
the
top
and
end
of
that
the
much
brief
because
Carol
Anna
would
Also
we
Watson
you ask Carol
might be at
the
length
now
where
like
Jenny s declaration
m getting
on the
From
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Subject
we
need
road
Sheila
Geiger
and
STEGGE
2014
Mary
TOA
as is
in a bit
VON TER
May 02
a TOC
so I
mailto
katevts
this over
to
the
smart people
now
multco us
9 03 AM
Williams
response
m turning
to
Joyce
motion to
Anna
intervene
Sheila
here
is
some
subject
of
since
don
Kate
von
draft
the
t
Ter
know
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
what
503
katevts
under
reply e mail
attachments
500
988
county
governance
citations
have
need
structure
to
in the
the
and
related
declaration
issues
sent
on the
yesterday
declaration
Portland
3138
co
keep
503
988
OR
County
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
information
applicable
that
Multnomah
3377
fax
multco us
NOTICE
e mail may contain
or otherwise
the
doesn
Attorney
Suite
tel
mailto
disclosure
It
else you might want
County
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
about
clerk
Stegge
Senior
3138
language
county
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
VON TER STEGGE
From
Katharine
To
Joyce Anna
CC
Mary Williams
Sent
5 2 2014 10 42 07
Subject
Re
Someone
needs to change
FW
the
mary h
Geiger
title
someone there has already done
williams
msn com
AM
response
to
motion to intervene
of Jenny s declaration
to match the
title
of the re sponse
can do
it
unless
it
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
May
Fri
Awesome
From
Sent
2 2014
10 34

2014 10 34 AM
Joyce Anna
On
Yes
all
Re
Joyce
Anna
anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
katevts
multco
us
May 02
Cc
Subject
AM
thanks
Katharine
Friday
at
To
for
OR
FW
Geiger
second thought
non elected
williams
msn com
instead of citing to our personnel rules
perhaps just cite to the state statute that covers this
officials
260 432
Solicitation of public
activities
1 No person
money
shall
employees
of public employees during working
attempt to
or actually
coerce
command
hours
or require a public employee to influence or give
service or other thing of value to promote or oppose any political committee or to promote or oppose the
nomination
or election of a candidate
the gathering of signatures on an
initiative
referendum or
recall petition
the
adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder
2 No public employee
shall
solicit
any money influence
service or other thing of value or otherwise promote or
oppose any
political
signatures on an
committee or promote or oppose the nomination or

referendum or
initiative
recall petition
holder while on the job during working hours
However
election of
the adoption of a measure
this
a candidate
the gathering of
or the recall of a public office
section does not restrict the right of a public employee to
express personal political views
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
May
Fri
2 2014
at
AM
10 22
Joyce
Anna
anna joyce
There s a blank cite on the top of page 12 that says that

person to further a political agenda
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Katharine
Subject
May 02
don
me
if
t
I
RE Geiger
you can share with us
a violation of personnel rules for the

for that
is
awesome
ve incorporated
subject to the
it
it
into our draft response
condentiality
of our
got in and messed with her forma ing that

block to the top and end of the brief
much
Also
Anna
we
common
have the signature block amended to include your information
signature
m aaching
like Jenny s declaration
m ge ing
From
Sent
on the road
Katharine
Friday
Potter
because Carol Watson
in a bit
so
m turning
might be
at the length
this over to the smart people
multco
us
etc etc
would smack
would you ask Carol to add the county
is
VON TER STEGGE mailto katevts

2014 9 03 AM
H Mary Williams Joyce Anna
May 02
Sheila
as
the latest draft with
interest agreement
TOA
and
To
would be
2014 10 19 AM
VON TER STEGGE
your excellent language in
cite
it
Sheila
Thank you This
Any
wrote
doj state or us
now
nowwhere we
need a
TOC
Subject
Geiger
Sheila
here
clerk
in
is
some
It
draft
doesn
have
citations
to the declaration
structure
and related issues
k now what
else
you might want need
the declaration
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Joyce Anna
To
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
CC
Mary Williams
Sent
5 2 2014 10 43 11
Subject
RE FW
We
can
take
care
From
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Joyce
Cc
Mary
can
Re
to
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
May 2
joyce
Awesome
multco us
the
title
com
to
motion to
of
Jenny s declaration
has already
intervene
done
to
match
Friday
To
Joyce
Cc
Mary
County
Attorney
Suite
988
500
at
co
Multnomah
Portland
title
of
the
response
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
katevts
10 34 AM
Joyce
or us mailto
multco us
Anna
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
wrote
STEGGE
2014
mailto
katevts
multco us mailto
katevts
multco us
10 34 AM
Anna
Re
On
VON TER
May 02
Williams
Subject
FW
second
statute
mary h williams msn
Geiger
thought
that
response
instead
covers
to
of
com mailto
motion to
citing
this for all
to
non
mary h williams msn
com
intervene
our personnel
elected
rules
perhaps
just cite
to
the
officials
432
Solicitation
of
public
employees
activities of public employees during working hours

1 No person shall attempt to
or actually
coerce
command
influence
or give
committee
or to
signatures
recall
of
money
promote
service
or oppose
on an initiative
a public
office
election
petition
during
of
a candidate
the
adoption
working
hours
express personal
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
the
thing
of
nomination
referendum
or recall
value
to
or require
promote
or election
petition
of
the
a public
or oppose
a candidate
adoption
of
employee to
any political
the
gathering
a measure
of
or the
solicit any money

influence
service or other thing of value or
any political committee or promote or oppose the nomination or
the
of
or other
holder
2 No public employee shall

otherwise promote or oppose
to
the
it
thanks
Katharine
260
response
someone there
2014
From
state
change
doj state
Sent
Yes
katevts
mary h williams msn
503
mailto
Fri
anna
mailto
10 42 AM
Stegge
Senior
On
STEGGE
2014
Geiger
unless
Ter
katevts
Thanks
VON TER
FW
needs
von
Geiger
msn com
williams
AM
Anna
do it
Kate
it
May 02
Williams
Subject
Someone
of
mary h
gathering
a measure
However
political
of
signatures
or the
this section
views
recall
does
on an initiative
of
a public
office
not
restrict
the
referendum
holder
right of
while
or recall
on the
a public
job
employee
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
On
mailto
Fri
anna
May 2
joyce
There
503
500
988
katevts
2014
at
doj state
s a blank
personnel
Attorney
Suite
tel
3138
katevts
County
cite
Multnomah
Portland
3138
co
503
988
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
3377
10 22 AM
Joyce
or us mailto
on the
rules for the
OR
County
top
person
of
to
fax
multco us
Anna
anna
joyce
page
12
further
doj state
that
says
or us
that
a political
it
agenda
wrote
would
be a violation
Any cite
you can
of
share
with us
for that
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
To
Thank
RE
you
latest
don
would
to
2014
VON TER
Geiger
This
draft
interest
May 02
Katharine
Subject
Sheila
is
awesome
have
the
etc
got
ve
incorporated
in and
the
county
now
where
like
Jenny s declaration
m getting
From
Katharine
Friday
language
need
road
Sheila
Geiger
amended
a TOC
and
Anna
it
into
in it
our draft
subject
to
the
response
m attaching
confidentiality
of
the
our common
STEGGE
2014
Mary
include
your information
to
the
top
and
end
of
that
the
because
much
brief
Carol
Anna
would
Also
we
Watson
you ask Carol
might be at
the
TOA
so I
m turning
mailto
katevts
this over
to
the
smart people
now
multco us
9 03 AM
Williams
response
to
as is
in a bit
VON TER
May 02
Joyce
intervene
s signature block
we
on the
Sent
Potter
motion to
signature block
me if
add
Subject
Williams
to
etc
length
To
Mary
response
with your excellent
agreement
smack
10 19 AM
STEGGE
to
Joyce
motion to
Anna
intervene
Sheila
here
is
some
subject
of
since
don
Kate
von
draft
the
t
Ter
know
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
what
503
katevts
under
reply e mail
attachments
500
988
county
governance
citations
have
need
structure
to
in the
the
and
related
declaration
issues
sent
on the
yesterday
declaration
Portland
3138
co
keep
503
988
OR
County
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
information
applicable
that
Multnomah
3377
fax
multco us
NOTICE
e mail may contain
or otherwise
the
doesn
Attorney
Suite
tel
mailto
disclosure
It
else you might want
County
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
about
clerk
Stegge
Senior
3138
language
county
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Joyce Anna
To
Katharine
Sent
5 2 2014 1 05 22
Subject
signature
I
to
m not
put
Anna
sure if
on the
VON TER STEGGE

PM
Thanks
Joyce
Solicitor General
Oregon
Department
of
multco us
block
someone already
document
katevts
Justice
asked
you for this but
can
you send
a signature block
for us
From
Joyce Anna
To
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE

PM
Sent
5 2 2014 1 09 02
Subject
RE
Disregard
trying
From
Joyce
Sent
Friday
To
I
to
m not
put
Anna
block
do this with people
May 02
2014
VON TER
STEGGE
in too
many
different
locations
1 05 PM
katevts
multco us
signature block
sure if
on the
someone already
document
Thanks
Joyce
Solicitor General
Oregon
multco us
Anna
Katharine
Subject
to
signature
katevts
Department
of
Justice
asked
you for this but
can
you send
a signature block
for us
From
Joyce Anna
To
Katharine
Sent
5 2 2014 1 31 07
Subject
Declaration
Just left
you a message
you a question
Anna
about
the
VON TER STEGGE

PM
Oregon
Department
of
you get
declaration
Joyce
Justice
multco us
question
When
Solicitor General
katevts
a chance
and
can
accompanying
you call
me at
exhibits
971
Thanks
673
5011
so I
can
ask
From
Lake Perriguey
Sent
5 4 2014 3 37 22
Subject
The Case Against 8
Here
PM
QDoc
the link to the trailer and to get tickets to the premier screening of this very timely film at the Queer
is
Fest
BRO
the community sponsor for the film and
is
Please
get tix
www
http
Lake James
now
you don
if
queerdocfest
SW
Perriguey
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
It
org film the case against 8
Law Works LLC

1906
Law Works
already have them
Justice
is
is
likely
a sponsor for the whole festival

to sell out
Doc
Film
From
Lake Perriguey
Sent
5 5 2014 5 04 32
Subject
A Comedian
www
http
rant
upworthy com a comedian
upw1
PM
Tears Apart
tears
Classic Anti
apart
a classic
Gay Argument
anti
In
gay argument
Hilariously Vicious
in
3 Minute
Rant
a hilar iously vicious
3 minute
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 7 2014 4 17 12
Subject
Got your message
Haven
971
had
221
Sheila
a moment free
till
8469
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
Justice
PM
now
but
m in the
car
now
Your cell
doesn
take
VM
m at
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
5 8 2014 3 09 45
Subject
Michigan s Brief Deboer
Notice
This communication
intended
Sheila
recipient
for
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
shouldn
with
including
avoiding
any attachments
individual
this
notified
Notice 2
PM
including
specific
and are hereby
attachments
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
is strictly
IRS regulations
any attachments
party
have read Michigan s
is
we
any transaction
brief in
Deboer
by law
If
you are not the

distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
not intended
to
to another
contain
and
US
Code
or
or matter addressed
v Snyder et
al so
federal tax advice
be used
soon
after
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
herein
lunch
in this
for the
or
VON TER STEGGE

R Jr Perkins
From
Katharine
To
Johnson
CC
Thomas
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
Sent
5 9 2014 2 01 56
Subject
Re
Should
we
speak
in
advance
Conference
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
Isaak
Misha
Mary Williams
Perkins Coie
mary h
Jennifer
williams
Middleton
msn com
PM
of the Wednesday
Multnomah
Portland
Sheila
Joyce Anna
call
Kate von Ter Stegge
com
Coie
Potter
hearing to discuss our presentations and
how
to promote efficiency
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Katharine
CC
Johnson
Coie
VON TER STEGGE

R Jr Perkins
Thomas
Jennifer
mary h
Middleton
5 9 2014 3 08 54
Subject
Re
Conference
Lea Ann Easton

justicelawyers
Potter
com
Sheila
Joyce Anna
Isaak
Misha Perkins
Mary Williams
msn com
williams
Sent
Coie
JMiddleton
PM
call
Kate
Tom
http
is
handling the argument for
www
On May
Should
all
the plaintiffs
law works com
PM
2014
at
2 01
we
speak
in
advance
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
of the Wednesday
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
katevts
multco us
wrote
how
From
Isaak
To
Misha
Perkins
Lake Perriguey
CC
Thomas
Johnson
JMiddleton
Coie
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Perkins Coie
Jr
justicelawyers
Sent
5 9 2014 4 50 30
Subject
RE
Conference
com
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna
Sheila
Potter
Mary Williams
mary h
Jennifer Middleton
msn com
williams
PM
call
Kate
Tom
As Lake says
participate
in
the argument for our team and he
handling
is
before
call
the hearing
but
ll
defer
to
Tom on
is
out of the office today
scheduling
We
would of course be happy to
etc
Misha
Misha Isaak
Coie LLP
Perkins
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Lake
Sent
Perriguey
To
Katharine
Cc
Johnson
com
VON TER STEGGE

Thomas R
JMiddleton
Subject
law works
mailto lake
2014 3 09 PM
May 09
Friday
Jr
justicelawyers
Re
Conference
Coie
Perkins
com
Lea Ann Easton
Joyce Anna
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
williams
Misha
Perkins
Coie
Jennifer
Middleton
msn com
call
Kate
Tom
handling the argument for
is
Lake James
all
the plaintiffs
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On May
Should
Civil
Justice
PM
2014
at
2 01
we
speak
in
advance
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
of the Wednesday
katevts
multco us
wrote
how
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
or written
otherwise
by Perkins
with
Treasury
Coie LLP to be used
Department
and IRS
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
that
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise

matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
or
may
contain
herein
or
Revenue Code
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
or
ii
any attachments
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Katharine
CC
Johnson
Coie
VON TER STEGGE

R Jr Perkins
Thomas
Jennifer
mary h
Middleton
5 9 2014 5 09 33
Subject
Re
Yes
Conference
justicelawyers
Potter
com
Sheila
Joyce Anna
Isaak
Misha Perkins
Mary Williams
msn com
williams
Sent
Lake Perriguey
Coie
JMiddleton
PM
call
When
Lea Ann
On May
Should
PM
2014
at
2 02
we
speak
in
advance
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
of the Wednesday
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
katevts
multco us
wrote
how
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Katharine
Sheila
Misha
VON TER STEGGE
Perkins Coie
mary h
Williams
williams
Sent
5 10 2014 10 46 14
Subject
Re
Sure
Monday
between
Conference
3 and
Jennifer
Johnson
Thomas
Middleton
Jr
JMiddleton
Perkins Coie
justicelawyers
Lake Perriguey
com
Isaak
Joyce Anna Mary
msn com
AM
call
5 would
be best
for me
or I
ve
got
some
space
on Tuesday
but
it
spottier
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 9
2014
LEaston
Yes
at
Justice
5 09 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
Ann
com mailto
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
When
Lea
On
of
Ann
May 9
2014
katevts
Should
we
promote
Kate
at
speak
Katharine
katevts
in advance
of
the
VON TER
multco us
STEGGE
wrote
Wednesday
hearing
to
discuss
our presentations
efficiency
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
2 02 PM
multco us mailto
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
and
how
to
From
Joyce Anna
To
Potter
CC
Katharine
H Lea Ann Easton

VON TER STEGGE Johnson
Sheila
Misha
Perkins Coie
mary h
5 10 2014 1 36 43
Subject
RE
can
Conference
Thomas
Middleton
Jr
JMiddleton
Perkins Coie
Lake Perriguey
com
justicelawyers
Mary
Isaak
Williams
msn com
williams
Sent
Jennifer
PM
call
do 3 on Monday
From
Potter
Sent
Saturday
To
Lea
Cc
Katharine
Misha
Ann
Sheila
Subject
Sure
2014
10 46 AM
Easton
VON TER
Perkins
Williams
May 10
STEGGE
Coie
Johnson
Jennifer
mary h williams msn

Re
Monday
Conference
between
Thomas
Middleton
Jr
JMiddleton
Perkins
Coie
justicelawyers
Lake
Perriguey
com
Joyce
Anna
space
on Tuesday
Isaak
Mary
com
call
3 and
5 would
be best
for me
or I
ve
got
some
but
it
spottier
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 9
2014
LEaston
Yes
at
Justice
5 09 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
Ann
com mailto
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
When
Lea
On
of
Ann
May 9
2014
katevts
Should
we
promote
Kate
at
speak
Katharine
katevts
in advance
of
the
VON TER
multco us
STEGGE
wrote
Wednesday
hearing
to
discuss
our presentations
efficiency
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
2 02 PM
multco us mailto
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
and
how
to
From
Mary Williams
To
Joyce Anna
CC
Potter
Sheila
Coie
Lake Perriguey Isaak
JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton
justicelawyers
Sent
5 10 2014 1 56 31
Subject
Re
Works
Sent
Coie
Jennifer
Thomas
Johnson
Jr
Perkins
Middleton
com
PM
call
too
May 10
can
2014
at
1 36 PM
Joyce
Anna
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
wrote
do 3 on Monday
From
Potter
Sent
Saturday
Ann
Sheila
To
Lea
Cc
Katharine
Misha
Perkins
Williams
Sure
May 10
2014
Re
Monday
10 46 AM
Easton
VON TER
Coie
STEGGE
Johnson
Jennifer
mary h williams msn
Subject
it
VON TER STEGGE
Perkins
from my iPad
On
I
for me
Conference
Katharine
Misha
Conference
between
Thomas
Middleton
Jr
JMiddleton
Perkins
Coie
justicelawyers
Lake
com
Perriguey
Joyce
Anna
Isaak
Mary
com
call
3 and
5 would
be best
for me
or I
ve
got
some
space
on Tuesday
but
s spottier
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 9
LEaston
Yes
at
Justice
5 09 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
Ann
com mailto
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
When
Lea
On
2014
of
Ann
May 9
katevts
we
Should
promote
Kate
2014
at
2 02 PM
multco us mailto
speak
in advance
of
VON TER
multco us
the
STEGGE
wrote
Wednesday
hearing
to
discuss
our presentations
and
how
to
efficiency
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Katharine
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
NOTICE
e mail may contain
information
that
is
privileged
confidential
or otherwise
exempt
from disclosure
context
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
applicable
law
If
you are not
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
the
addressee

and
immediately
or it
appears
please advise
delete
the
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
JMiddleton
H
Katharine
justicelawyers
VON TER STEGGE

com
5 10 2014 7 23 37
Subject
CONFERENCE CALL MONDAY
everyone
is
Monday
available
Tom
Johnson
Mary Williams
Misha Isaak
mary h
Jennifer Middleton
williams
msn com
PM
Sent
Assuming
Joyce Anna
at
AT 3
Call in info
Call in number
1 862
902 0250
9166667
PIN
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On May
2014
at
Justice
10 46
AM
Potter Sheila
Monday between 3 and 5 would be
Sure
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
10
Civil
best for
sheila
me
potter
or I ve got
doj state or us
some
wrote
space on Tuesday
but
it
s spottier
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On May
LEaston
Yes
2014
at
Justice
5 09
PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
When
Lea Ann
On May
PM
2014
at
2 02
we
speak
in
advance
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
Should
Kate von Ter Stegge
of the Wednesday
how
Senior
501
SE
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite 500
OR
97214
co multnomah or us
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
multco us
http
multco us
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
Portland
County Attorney
503 988 3377 fax
mailto katevts
This e mail
Multnomah
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
5 12 2014
Subject
Do
And
what
H
VON TER STEGGE
2 14 50 PM
Sheila
you have time for a quick
s your number
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
Justice
call
before 3 00
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
5 12 2014
Subject
Re Do
VON TER STEGGE

H
2 15 32 PM
Sheila
call
before
3 00
503 988 3138
Are
we
using Lake s call in
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
On Mon May
And what
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
500
12
2014
at
2 14
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
your number
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
5 12 2014
Subject
Re Do
Would
On
you call
May 12
katevts
503
988
Are we
Kate
Anna
2014
s office
at
2 15 PM
when
you re off
Katharine
katevts
call
before
the
VON TER
3 00
phone
971
673
5011
STEGGE
multco us
wrote
Multnomah
County
3138
using
von
Ter
Lake
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
Mon
May 12
potter
what
County
in
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
sheila
s call
Stegge
Assistant
And
multco us mailto
Senior
On
H
VON TER STEGGE
2 21 03 PM
Sheila
988
500
Portland
katevts
co
2014
2 14 PM
at
97214
fax
3377
doj state
OR
Attorney
Potter
or us mailto
Sheila
sheila
multco us
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
s your number
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
Tom
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 12 2014 3 40 42
Subject
Collusion
To be
clear
have the
http
the definition of a collusion
definition
www
handy on Wednesday
law works com
Johnson
Mary Williams
Joyce Anna
Potter
Sheila
PM
is
to act in secret toward
fraudulent
or illegal objective
It
might be helpful to
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Misha Isaak
Sheila
rsaxe
Jennifer
Kevin Diaz
aclu org
Sent
5 13 2014 12 50 14
Subject
Anniversary
May
17th
is
Lake James
the 10th anniversary
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
Tom Johnson Lea Ann Easton Mary Williams Joyce Anna Potter
Amanda Goad LGBT
agoad
aclu org
agoad
aclu org
Rose Saxe
Middleton
of the
first
AM
legal
same gender marriages
in
Massachu
setts
From
Charlene
To
dorsayindianlaw
com jmiddleton justicelawyers
com MIsaak
perkinscoie com
agoad
aclu org
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com Joyce Anna mary h williams msn com Potter
jeastman
chapman edu roger
hbclawyers com
lake
org
or
Pew
ord uscourts gov
law works
KJHolm
com
leaston
AM
RESPONSE REQUIRED
Sent
com
kdiaz aclu
perkinscoie
Sheila
5 13 2014 10 17 31
Subject
01834
5 14 Geiger
et al
v Kitzhaber
and
client or client repr
et al
Hearing
USDC No
6 13cv
MC
Counsel
You
will
need
to provide the Court with a list
be attending the hearing on 5 14

the teleconference
select
one attorney
answered by the
argument
will
Additionally
please advise
court prefers that the plaintiffs
if
and
be conducted
no
will not allow the parties to recite
from counsel
electronic
today
Courtroom Deputy
to

District of
Judge McShane
their briefing
devices will be allowed in the courtroom
Pew
Charlene
one attorney
Oregon
405 E 8th Avenue
Room 2100
Eugene
OR
Phone
541 431 4105
97401
th
who
will
arties calling into
and the defendants
will
on
esentatives
h ave questions
e record
All
table
Please remind your clients
Please respond by 3 00 p
there will be any p
select
to argue issues pertaining to intervention
parties
Please remember
attorneys
The
line
of attorneys
except for p articipating
to
be
From
Potter
To
Tom
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 13 2014 2 50 17
Subject
Fwd
Sheila
Johnson
ve
been
in meetings
be arguing
H
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
Begin
May 13
To
lake
leaston
solid
of
Pew
law
aclu
works
com mailto
kdiaz
are you responding

be there
lake
or org
agoad
No
one
aclu
for all
s calling
as you did before
ll
in for us
edu
hbclawyers
Subject
01834
MC
need
to
ord uscourts
gov
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
anna
com
com mailto
kdiaz
aclu
KJHolm perkinscoie
com
com
perkinscoie
joyce
roger
REQUIRED
sheila
com
doj state
mary h williams msn
jeastman
com mailto
RESPONSE
works
TRJohnson
or us mailto
mailto
Pew
org
or us mailto
com mailto
Charlene
leaston
MIsaak
doj state
chapman
law
KJHolm
com mailto
doj state
mailto
com mailto
com mailto
org mailto
potter
6 13 cv
13 cv
PDT
com mailto
aclu
mary h williams msn

jeastman
gov
10 17 31 AM
perkinscoie
joyce
roger
10am
will
ord uscourts
at
perkinscoie
sheila
USDC No 6
Hearing
Justice
dorsayindianlaw
TRJohnson
anna
et al
message
2014
or org mailto
agoad
since
Ellen
MIsaak
v Kitzhaber
Trial Counsel
Charlene
Date
et al
Potter
forwarded
From
5 14 Geiger
MC
for defendants
Sheila
Perkins Coie
PM
RESPONSE REQUIRED
01834
Misha Isaak
Mary Williams
potter
chapman
edu
hbclawyers
com
5 14 Geiger et
or us
com
doj state
al v
or us
Kitzhaber
et
al Hearing
USDC
No
Counsel
You
will
representatives
there
will
provide
who
select
pertaining
to
will
not
conducted
Please
intervention
remember
States
of
8th
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
png
to
Charlene
Room
4105
recite
attorneys and
on 5 14
teleconference
defendants
will
select
have
client
or client
Additionally
line
one
The
on the
to
please advise
court
attorney
questions
their briefing
will
Pew
Michael
Court
2100
be allowed
remind your clients
today
Oregon
431
of
hearing
the
McShane
devices
Please
Judge
97401
the
the
to
prefers
argue
be answered
record
All
that
McShane
in the
courtroom
by the
argument
except
if
the
issues
table
District
Avenue
and
Judge
by 3 00 p m
Deputy
into
parties to
no electronic
mime attachment
405
the
attorneys
respond
District
attorney
from counsel
Courtroom
United
one
allow
participating
Please
Court with a list
be attending
be any parties calling
plaintiffs
and
the
will
for
parties
will
be
VON TER STEGGE

H Mary Williams
2 51 34 PM
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
5 13 2014
Subject
hearing tomorrow
Sheila
Joyce Anna
Jenny
MADKOUR
Hi Sheila
When
that
you address the court
would you please take a couple of seconds
can follow you then without having to explain why she
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
to explain that
the county will be addressing the clerk issue while you will address the rest
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
not addressing
all
points
on
we
filed
behalf of
all
a joint response and

defendants
Thanks and good
luck
Jenny
From
Johnson
To
Potter
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 13 2014 2 52 49
Subject
RE
PM
RESPONSE REQUIRED
01834
MC
did not
state
Jr
Isaak
Perkins Coie
Misha
Perkins Coie
Mary Williams
responded
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
for us and
5 14 Geiger
copied
me
He
v Kitzhaber
et al
did not
et al
indicate
USDC No
Hearing
attendance
6
13 cv
as to
the
Perkins
Coie
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
FAX
Lake
or county
Thomas
1120
but
Thomas
Sheila
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
2176
8918
2176
com
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Tuesday
To
Johnson
Cc
Joyce
Sheila
Thomas
Anna
Subject
Fwd
6 13 cv
01834
ve
been
Jr
Oregon
Department
lake
leaston
solid
of
Pew
2014
Misha
Perkins
Coie
5 14 Geiger et
al v
Kitzhaber
et
al Hearing
USDC
No
10am
will
are you responding

be there
No
one
for all
s calling
as you did before
ll
in for us
law
Justice
ord uscourts
at
works
com mailto
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
aclu
TRJohnson
lake
com mailto
or org
agoad
MIsaak
aclu
or us mailto
chapman
edu
hbclawyers
Subject
com mailto
doj state
01834
MC
need
to
ord uscourts
gov
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
anna
com
com mailto
kdiaz
aclu
KJHolm perkinscoie
com
com
perkinscoie
joyce
roger
REQUIRED
sheila
com
doj state
mary h williams msn
jeastman
com mailto
RESPONSE
works
TRJohnson
or us mailto
mailto
Pew
org
doj state
potter
Charlene
leaston
KJHolm
com mailto
mary h williams msn
law
com mailto
com mailto
org mailto
mailto
PDT
perkinscoie
joyce
jeastman
gov
10 17 31 AM
dorsayindianlaw
or org mailto
6 13 cv
since
Ellen
roger
Isaak
message
Charlene
sheila
Perkins
Trial Counsel
May 13
anna
Coie
or us
Potter
forwarded
agoad
doj state
REQUIRED
for defendants
Chief
MIsaak
potter
Williams
RESPONSE
To
sheila
2 50 PM
MC
Deputy
Date
2014
Mary
Sheila
From
mailto
in meetings
be arguing
Begin
May 13
potter
chapman
edu
hbclawyers
com
5 14 Geiger et
or us
com
doj state
al v
or us
Kitzhaber
et
al Hearing
USDC
No
Counsel
You
will
representatives
there
will
provide
who
select
pertaining
to
will
conducted
Please
the
Court with a list
be attending
be any parties calling
plaintiffs
and
will
not
one
attorney
intervention
allow
the
from counsel
remember
participating
and
Judge
parties to
the
of
hearing
the
teleconference
defendants
McShane
recite
attorneys and
on 5 14
will
select
have
line
one
The
or client
on the
to
please advise
court
attorney
questions
their briefing
client
Additionally
to
prefers
argue
be answered
record
All
that
devices
Please
will
be allowed
remind your clients
in the
courtroom
by the
argument
except
if
the
issues
table
no electronic
attorneys
into
the
for
parties
will
be
Please
respond
by 3 00 p m
mime attachment
Courtroom
United
States
District
405
png
Deputy
of
8th
to
OR
Phone
541
Room
431
under
or otherwise
NOTICE
attachments
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
you have
keep
the
CIRCULAR
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
regulations
Perkins
2100
4105
e mail may contain
contained
McShane
Court
97401
disclosure
IRS
Pew
Michael
Oregon
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Charlene
Judge
District
Avenue
Eugene
today
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
H
VON TER STEGGE
From
Potter
To
Katharine
CC
Mary Williams
Sent
5 13 2014 2 54 00
Subject
Re
Sheila
hearing
Joyce Anna
MADKOUR
Jenny
PM
tomorrow
My read of Charlene s e mail is that the judge

lawyer for all defendants
Was that not yours
answer specific
questions
about
county
clerks
only wants one lawyer for all plaintiffs

one
I thought I d note that Jenny will be able to
better
than
can
and
point
him in that
direction
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
Chief Trial Counsel

On
Potter
May 13
katevts
2014
at
2 51 PM
multco us mailto
Katharine
katevts
VON TER
multco us
STEGGE
wrote
Hi Sheila
When
you address
a joint
response
address
the
explain why
Kate
von
Ter
court
and
that
would
the
rest on behalf
she s not
of
you please take
county
all
addressing
will
defendants
all
a couple
be addressing
points
Jenny can
of
the
seconds
clerk
follow
Thanks
and
good
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
County
Attorney
Portland
OR
you then
luck
97214
fax
to
issue
Stegge
Senior
katevts
the
multco us
explain that
we
while
you will
without
having
to
filed
Sent
MADKOUR
Sheila H
5 13 2014 2 58 15 PM
Subject
Re
From
Jenny
To
Potter
CC
hearing
MADKOUR
Jenny
tomorrow
That s a fine approach

Thanks Sheila
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
500
Suite
Oregon 97214
Portland
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
May
My
Tue
message
and
or the attachments
13 2014
2 54
at
read of Charlene s e mail
Was
not yours
that
than I can
Sheila
Deputy
may
by
in error please notify the sender immediately
that
is
thought
and point him
PM
I
in that
Potter
Sheila
reply email
sheila
information
and
protected
then destroy
potter
that
by
the attorney
copies of
this
for
all
client
privilege
If
you have
received
this
Thank you
transmission
wrote
doj state or us
the judge only wants one lawyer
d note
all
plaintif
fs
one lawyer for
Jenny will be able to answer specific questions
defendants
all
about county clerks better
direction
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On May
13
2014
at
Justice
2 51
PM
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
multco us
katevts
mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
Hi Sheila
When
that
to explain that
not addressing
all
points
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior
501
SE
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite 500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
mailto katevts
CONFIDENTIALITY
co multnomah
NOTICE
or us
multco us
http
multco us
on
we
filed
behalf of
all

defendants
Thanks and good
luck
Jenny
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
5 13 2014
Subject
Re
VON TER STEGGE

H
2 58 20 PM
Sheila
hearing
Did Charlene send an email recently
tomorrow
m not
sure I ve seen what you re referring to
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
503 988 3377
OR
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
May
Tue
My
Suite
13 2014
2 54
at
read of Charlene s e mail
Was
not yours
that
than I can
Sheila
Deputy
that
is
thought
and point him
PM
I
in that
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
the judge only wants one lawyer
d note
that
wrote
doj state or us
for
all
plaintif
fs
one lawyer for
Jenny will be able to answer specific questions
defendants
all
about county clerks better
direction
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
On May
13
2014
at
Justice
2 51
PM
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
multco us
katevts
mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
Hi Sheila
When
that
to explain that
not addressing
all
points
on
we
filed
behalf of
all

defendants
Thanks and good
Jenny
luck
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior
501
SE
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite 500
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
applicable law
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
mailto katevts
This e mail
Multnomah
co multnomah
multco us
http
multco us
NOTICE
If
or us
is
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
that
you have received
this
e mail in error
the message
please advise
me
the contents conf
idential
From
Potter
To
Charlene
CC
lake
Pew
ord uscourts gov
law works
org
or
Sheila
KJHolm
TRJohnson
roger
com
dorsayindianlaw
com jmiddleton justicelawyers com kdiaz aclu
com MIsaak
perkinscoie com
agoad
aclu org
com Joyce Anna mary h williams msn com jeastman chapman edu
leaston
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
hbclawyers
com
PM
Sent
5 13 2014 2 58 21
Subject
Re
RESPONSE REQUIRED
01834
MC
Ms
Pew
The
attorneys in attendance
Madkour
the
Attorney
anyone
calling
Sheila
Deputy
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon
Department
On
May 13
in
2014
Thank
of
at
for the
General
and
defendants
me
will
5 14 Geiger
will
et al
v Kitzhaber
be Mary
Williams
be arguing
for the
et al
Hearing
Anna
USDC No
Joyce
defendants
We
6
13 cv
Jenny
won
have
you
Justice
10 17 AM
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
mailto
Charlene
Pew
ord uscourts
gov
wrote
Counsel
You
will
need
to
representatives
provide
who
will
the
Court with a list
be attending
there will
plaintiffs
be any parties calling into

select one attorney and the
pertaining
to
and
will
not
conducted
intervention
allow
the
from counsel
Judge
parties to
the
of
hearing
attorneys and
on 5 14
respond
United
States
District
405
of
McShane
recite
8th
Eugene
OR
Phone
541
Court
Oregon
Avenue
Room
97401
431
today
png
Charlene Pew
to Judge Michael McShane
District
4105
please advise
will
have
questions
their briefing
on the
to
be answered
record
All
by the
argument
table
by 3 00 p m
mime attachment
Courtroom Deputy
or client
the teleconference
line
The court prefers that
defendants
select one attorney to argue issues
Please remember
no electronic devices
will be allowed
participating attorneys
Please remind your clients
Please
client
Additionally
2100
in the
courtroom
except
for
if
the
parties
will
be
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 14 2014 12 42 38
Subject
As promised
Attachments
20140514112621663
Here
s the
This
all
brief that
still
Gini and
LEaston
PM
pdf
Rives
feels so surreal
did
dorsayindianlaw
com
Roy
ROMER
Governor
as
of
of the State
and
Colorado
1995
WL
1995
WL 17008441
US
170o8441
Appellate Brief
United States Supreme dourt Amicus Brief
ROMER
Roy
and the State of Colorado
Governor of the State of Colorado
as
Petitioners
V
Richard
Angela Romero Linda Fowler Paul Brown
EVANS
John Miller the Boulder Valley School District

the City of
Re2
the City
Priscilla
Boulder the City of Aspen and the City Council of Aspen
No
Inkpen
and County of Denver

Respondents
941039
Term 1994
October
June 191995
On Writ
Nevada
Solicitor
Building
Kulongoski
andthe
Washington
General of
Attorney
Michael
General
Supreme Court of Colorado
Amici Curiae States of Oregon Iowa Maryland Massachusetts
Brief of
Theodore
of Certiorari to the
Solicitor
503 3784402
Salem Oregon 97310 Phone
Minnesota
Columbia Supporting Respondents
of
Thomas
Oregon
Assistant
Reynolds
District
Balmer Deputy Attorney General
General Rives Kistler Assistant
Attorney
Linder
400
Justice
Virginia
General
Counsel forAmici Curiae

t
Whether
or
the
enforcing
based on
NOTE
Equal
Protection
any law
their
Page
sexual
or
policy
that
is
violated
would
QUESTION PRESENTED
by
a state constitutional
in original
II
Introduction
Amendment
A Amendment
B Amendment
Is
Is
Because
Invalid
Not
Entitled
to
2 Disables Colorados
it
Lacks
Amendment
2 Unconstitutionally
Protection
Governmental
Amendment
Petitioners
discrimination
Violates
Concerns
5
5
Obective
State
Legitimate
AnYSpecialeferebd
Government fromAddressingDiscrimination
One Group of Citizens

C The Substantive Policy Choice Contained
III
or private
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
1
government from enacting
document
OF AMICI
SUMMARY
state
gays lesbians andbisexuals from any form of public
protect
iii
INTEREST
that prohibits
provision
orientation
missing
ii
Clause
in
Denies
Amendment2
Class of
Against
Is Illegitimate
Citizens
11
Equal Access
to
16
from Discrimination
Equal Protection
About
the
Reach
of
Principles
of
Decision
17
Neutrality
Invalidating
Amendment
Are
22
Misplaced
IV No
Rational
Justification
for
Amendment
Can Be
or
Has
Been Advanced
27
CONCLUSION
30
APPENDIX
vNext
AppA
2013 TThon
on PnotoPx7
No
laird
oriciaI
iI
i1
Novo
rn
en
WNCrks
Roy
ROMER
Governor
as
of the State of
Colorado ancs` 1995
WL 17008441
iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
US
v Rash 380
Carrington
1965
89
25
US 701 1969
of Mobile v Bolden 446 US 55 1980
Cleburne v Cleburne Living Center 473 US 432
v
Cipriano
City
ofHouma
395
25
City
v Los Angeles Board of Education
Crawford
17 1822
1985
US
458
11 1416 29
527
20
deSha v Reed 194 Colo 367 572 P2d 821 1977

Energy Reserves Group v Kansas Power
Light Co 459
21
1982
US
14
1983
400
v Romer 854 P2d 1270 Colo 1993

Evans v Romer 882 P2d 1335 Colo 1994
Gordon v Lance 403
1971
Evans
US
Harper v
Bd
Virginia State
24
US
of Elections 383
14 22 23
663
25
1966
1 Doe
Heller
Holt
Hunter
439
27
US
1978
60
US 385 1969
Valtierra 402 US 137 1971
Helms 452 US 412 1981
Kramer v
Luther
Borden
8 9
13 22 23 26
14 22 23 25
2021
US 621 1969 ti
General Assembly 377 US 713 19641
48 US 7 How
1849
Union Free School
v Colorado
Lucas
1993
2637
v Tuscaloosa
v Erickson 393
James v
Jones
SCt
113
Club
Civic
Dist 395
25
8
8
Mabon v Keisling 317 Or 406 856 P2d 1023 1993

McGoldrick
US
1982
v New
for
University
York
1979
Powell
US
Authority
369
US
468
Jaycees
US
v California 370
v Board of Education
609
660
US
1973
Term Limits Inc v
4413
1995
105
United
Washington
Co
v Carolene Products
States
1938
School Dist
Seattle
US
18 25
26
13
19
26
1967
63
US
US
304
No 1
458
411
22
US
USLW
Dept ofAgriculture v Moreno 413
States
1973
United
US
Thornton
27
1962
San Antonio Independent School Dist v Rodriguez
US
718
1984
US
387
US
v Beazer 440
1968
1967
514
US
v Mulkey 387
Robinson
Sailors
Women v Hogan 458
City Transit
v Texas 392
Reitman
Roberts
309
1940
430
Mississippi
568
v Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
10
144
US
63
USLW
4413
1995
1416 28
5Z8
29
21
457
14 17 18 21 22 26
1982
Wisconsin
Zohel
113
v Mitchell
v Williams 457
SCt 2194 1993
US
20
1982
55
14 29
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES
Colo Const Art II
Colo Const Art II
10
11
12
12
STATUTES
DC
DC
Code Ann
12512a 1981
Code Ann
12515a 1981
vi
Mass Gen
NJ
Rev
Or Rev
stki
Stat
Stat
Next
ch
151B
1054 1994
659165
E 2012
26
Ihorn
on
Routers
No
Ui nm
to Oricginol
US
Gouernment
t+Joi
ROMER
Roy
Governor
as
of
of the State
and
Colorado
WL 17008441
1995
MISCELLANEOUS
DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST 1980
John Hart
Ely
Schuman
The Origin of State Constitutional
Democracy
L REV
TEMPLE
67
22
3
Direct
1994
947
Supreme Court Rule 375
1
The
of
States
the
of Colorados
State
against a
a
not
is
voters
All
is
amici
the
limited to
the
to
the
District
classes
suspect
of
District
and
States
discrimination
case arises
interest in this
Columbia
most
have
also
part
as
their
protected
the
aged
the
the
state
If
from discrimination
so
Petitioners
allocate
protection
have
sister
and
analysis
in
States
about
the
that
the
our view
interest in clarifying the
we
record
by
to
laws None of
about
this
1 The threshold
therefore
aimed
at
issue
one
in
be addressed
effect
government
It
may be
in
other
area
from
the
or
the
amendments
status
orientation
for the
of
the
Amendment 2
By
a
case
that
is
whether
no
is
law
group of
its
to
the
imagination
indiscriminate
reach
in
its
wholesale
right
authorization
citizens
Amendment
sake of discrimination one
a constitutional
of
the
of
tools
kind
of threat
decision
that
the
of scrutiny even
level
or
enforced
to
be jeopardized
be
their
troubled
With
due
right to
by
federal
in a
States
democracy
participatory
respect
for
such
Colorado
The amici
misplaced
their
sovereignty
policy contained
are
and
petitioners
value
group
aged mentally
States sovereign
the
of
basis
disfavored
their
and
States
the
States
Court
in Amendment
rational
basis
state
is
itself
legitimate
laws must always be
in the
and public
2 stands
that elevates
lines
provision
as
nothing
public
might be drawn
of discrimination found
in
and
to
Colorado
alike
more
private
No
bisexuals
from
prohibited
categorically
than
refined
is
among
not
I1
lifes
activities
blanket
against
citizens
a legitimate
and services
benefits
segment of
discrimination
differentiate
Amendment 2
has
its
The discrimination may be public or private
of governmental
officials
and
gays lesbians
protect
charter
constitutional
from any form of discrimination
private
Whatever
Some
bias will
would
too
aubtatltive policy contained
may be enacted
citizens
of
We
on
laws
against
not
this prohibition
placing
tie
pursue Under` any
tb
protection
protect
this brief
of an adverse
presents
effect
in
joining
vitality
as the
long
sovereignty
antidiscrimination
amendment
would have
States
that
argue
ARdUMENT
employment and public accommodation
form open
discrimination
to
protecting
housing
in thi
entitled
provides
discrimination of any kind

from
is
objectives
legitimate
Amendment
to
that a State
to
wisdom of every public
the
so
state
extended
from protecting
of Colorados
perspective before
state
SUiMMARYO
and
their
have
efforts
States
support
tothe
case
the potential
another
putting
threat
physically disabled
the
government
decision
The
Colorados
scrutinize
significant
do not believe
concerns
in
appeared
by any
an adverse
government
petitioners
with
interference
government
amici
the
defense
their
In
effect
state
courts
require
But
their
have
that
be concerned
interest
of
then
class
any
protection
gay lesbian and bisexual citizens from popular
potential
divisions
States
would
state
disable
to
form of discrimination
sometimes private discrimination on
and
submit
amendment
make
petitioners
and
Columbia
out of an
group from discrimination
mentally retarded
may always
suspect
as their
second
various
and referendum
initiative
an
the
And we would
constitution
concerns
among
authority
with Colorado
equally
and our
deep
express
target
as well
citizens
majority
argue
does not
it
as
implicate
arguments
supporters
as the
long
and handicapped
retarded
equal
as petitioners
of
District
arises
prohibiting
of
sexual orientation
the
case
unjustified
federal
from public
citizens
withdrawal
this
antidiscrimination
well as
as
in this
from
State
arguments
the
din
issue
would be an
contend
jurisdictions
such
groups
of
and
Washington
any disfavored
protecting
petitioners
in large
defense
In
Columbia have adopted
of
Rather
nonsuspect
from
disable a State
To hold otherwise
class
Nevada
explicitly disables the
her sexual orientation
his or
may always
suspect
The amici States
of
Minnesota
Supreme Court Rule 375 The
to
amendment
That
constitution
person because
majority of
group
Iowa Maryland Massachusetts
Oregon
support of respondents pursuant
this brief in
INTEREST OF AMICI
or in
is
endorsement of
one group of
on
state
the
any
spared
basis
goal
citizens
of
sexual
for this or for
ROMER
Roy
other
any
reason
Amendment 2
group
alone
is
fails
Amendment
hands The amendment however

from discrimination
when they need
age
marital
they
The
may
invidious
enforced
losers in
or
contest
law mast
any
under
meet
In
benign
Equal Protection
the
elected
from
Colorado has withdrawn
effect
common
policy choice
withdrawing
personal
the interests
bisexual
or
gay lesbian
line
level
that
For
characteristics
they share by
of
virtue
has
government
orientation Colorados
and
for that
in the
voters
Clause
the
and placing
officials
equal access
other
all
to
their distinguishing
to
power
government
and
protection
nonsuspect
characteristics
personal
them But when
protect
no
is
it
governmental
suspect
groups
the
longer
and
to
the
provide
to
result
of
all
shared
the
which
to
government
is
for
the
to
a rational
Amendment 2s
is
to
adequate
the
is
problem
confidence
necessary
no law
that
not issues
persons
But
are to
to
withdraw
may be enacted
be
the
consistent
more pernicious given Amendment 2s broad focus on laws
the
of any kind
if
at all
only
if
Amendment 2
satisfies
it
is
strict
the
of
antithesis
or
scrutiny
the
some other
basis
2s terms and then whether
reasons
to declare
neutral
I>
only
subject
that
The Equal Protection Clause
structure are
group and
advance
in
can be sustained
It
ofits political
a distinctive
declare
is
terms
from discrimination
discrimination not
private
is
does not
it
not simply one of imprecision Rather
broad
The
bisexuals
petitioners rationales
most defend
as the
which
rational
so long
characteristics
Clause requires
Amendment
None of
and bisexuals
power
personal
should not be underestimated
decisionmaking
political
interests
group
Amendment
must advance
rationales at
to the
gays lesbians
of review
if
of
of lawmaking
group from discrimination
their
over
drawn by
is
allocation
Equal Protection
the
Finally even
too
that
disability Colorados
that restructuring
States
protect
petitioners
that
directed to
physical
power by reference
any
heightened
what
of
effect
to a
neutrality that
is
protecting
would
that
or policies
legislation
status mental
governmental
or
test
turn
indifferent
is
merely
as
not
is
based only on one groups
characteristic
personal
threshold
the
unconstitutional
defend
Petitioners
WL 17008441
Governor of the State of Colorado anti 1995
as
it
the
support
public
tnalid That
is
rationally serves
rationales
2 also
the
other
by anything
Court
objectives
of
all
authorizes
narrow and
are far too
the
against
Moreover
Amendment
supported
is
that
state
legitimate
amendments breadth
discrimination that
Amendment
test requires
of discrimination
authorization
categorical
that petitioners
that
si
thatline
sweep
than
first
ask
Properly
gays lesbians
their
proffered
The problem
is
of Amendment
private
bias
and
prejudice
ARGUMENT
1
INTRODUCTION
Prior to
enactment
the
legislature the
to
designed
laws
The
education
previously
lesbians
characteristics
of
coalition
Amendment
effectively
provides
Stlr
and
in
no
private
to
1992
other
were
also
singled
Colorado
election
declare
that
those
for
t1
Thon
ors
Ictiretef3
governmental
the
of
areas
basis
Constitution
of sexual
orientation
classes
various
and
public
suas
the
aged
for private
discriminatory treatment
or
governmental
By
rUtm
andpu
blic
need and were equally
Values
succeeded
body
or
public
7ririmni
gathering
voters
official
mentally
representatives
on
the
policies
and physically
had been
basis
that
of personal
passed
Using Colorados
the
the
may enact
necessary
initiative
signatures
provision Colorados
or
enforce
any
law
to
process
qualify
Constitution
or
policy
that
and bisexuals
gays lesbians
Ct
the
in
and
and
higher
need of protection
and enactments
policies
small majority
in
officials
state
policies
and
antidiscrimination
the
the
policies
accommodation
were extensions of
of citizens
laws
Most of those
orientation
employment housing
of sexual
Amendment
bodies had adopted
elected
against
on
States
the
of mairy of Colorados
legislative
any claim of discrimination
amend
to
local
nonsuspect
Family
ballot
no
basis
out
to ability
to
the
The judgment
general
to
in
the
on
persons
numerous
initiative
certain
discrimination
from
real relationship
citizens
was amended
a basis for
agencies
grassroots response
and
discrimination
for
persons
and bisexuals
having
2 for the
Next
given
place
antigay rights
citizens
public
protections
Amendment 2 was
a
and
private
adopted
state
Colorados
and unmarried
disabled
gays
to
some
governor
protect
related
of Colorados
4sovorr1rnrIt tNoilc>
ROMER
Roy
Central
to
and
to
their
the
peoples
have
interests
They may continue
this a
is
their
pressure on
for
popular
for
in other
and balances with
This
not however
leaving
for
From
which
It
some
group of
itscitizens
then
explains
other
so
failsi`to`do
what
governmental
routine
officials
anyone
27
Pet Br
Clause
who has
else
they do not have
Gays
an election
lost
a right
is
to
successful
retain
repeal the
of
actions
previously
to
the
vote
to
involves
law
the
of
power
the
incumbents
for
process of
dynamic
policy
elected
of any
government
officials
antidiscrimination
policies
that
in the
to act
authority
majority can be implored
popular
state
their
adopted
government
a
political
of
a referral
access
declining
political
may put
check
the
whatever
or
force
States
The
voters
citizens
may
decisionmaking
frequent
a substantive
expresses
procedures
of Colorados
than
States
voters
States
all
checked
merely
other
protection
In
laws
amici
the
disagree
of Colorado
actions
some
in
political
as a
citizens
private
the
enact unpopular
recall
special
branches
all
of
voters
legislation
mechanisms
have
voters
as
rights
majority of
legislatures
operating
majorities
level Amendment
and
gays lesbians
under
VThen
repealing
to divest
Equal Protection
the
same
defense
their
Amendment 2 does more than
operates
their
such discrimination
is
to
future
And
grant
now
officially
Colorado
in
even
and
these
Colorado
checkmate
with
outeither using
rascals
and bisexuals with no
lesbians
basis for
Amen
may
Or
governor
initiate
more than
nothing
of
gays lesbians and bisexuals lost an election
processes
policy with which
public
If the
to
the
precisely
political
which
in
case
to
the policies
original
arguments
of popular
amici States perspective
the
whether
in
in
disagreemepts
the
simply
is
of Colorados
all
of
them
will
at a constitutional
by doing so
in
Through
sexual orientation
gays
authorized
the
case
Here they have achieved

and laws
have
voters
States
checks
is
of consequence
to
veto
to
reelection
for
is
any
petitioners
they may vote
is
when they stand
that
those
exactly
governor
vote
boxthat
ballot
way
maintain continue
in
amendment amounts
this
this
repeal
with
that
disagreement and displeasure with
cast it
fully
mere
either
WL 17008441
1995
view
their
is
processes Ibid emphasis
quarrel
designed
express
harmed
petitioners
their
petitioners
participate
case involving
would have no
process
to
those
in
participation
to
As
not been
and bisexuals
Amendment
of
authority
those policies
change
lesbians
Were
defense
petitioners
of
exercise
and
as
why
case
is
are a
distinctions
legislative
It
is
one
Colorado
the
d ment 2 unconstttuhona
can and should be decided on
or
sufficient
analysis renders
basis
that
suspect
quasisuspect
to
hold
Amendment
wholesale
accomplishes
narrow
not
of
States
ability
an
a legitimate
to
one
protect
goal That illegitimacy
state
begins with
brief
provides
can be
orientation
a legitimate
This
Supreme Courts analysis properly understood
The Court need not decide
ground
sexual
withdrawal
is
2 unconstitutional
whether
or
class
that the
Amendment
from discrimination which
rational
this
bisexuals
that
alternative
argument
for
ground
It
holding
P`k
AMENDMENT
II
A Amendment
One of
the
State
It
is
through
Is
INVALID BECAUSE IT LACKSA LEGIITIMATE
Not Entitled
of
attributes
core
chooses Luther
pleasure
IS
v Borden 48
therefore
and
US
439
Considerations
of sovereignty
or
US
Contrary
it
1964
petitioners
was passed by
the
70
Clause
2013
may
give
see also
at
the
position
reflects
See
to
power
for a
403
iafrrt
choice of
514
will
th
provides
1 6 1971
luj11
xl
ii
political
changes
the
Bill
779
and
desires
subjects
at
See
394
adopted
that
eg
63
USLW
special shelter
it
peoples
of
people
Holt Civic
otherwise
Club
violates
through popular
4413
of Colorados
of Rights removes
at the
the
that
way
Harlan J concurring
structure that
are
structure
no
in the
form of government
it
form Lucas v Colorado
US
Colorado
the
its
as
of government
1969 id
political
Thornton
form
certain
over
385 392
States chosen
Inc
US
tc
power
the fact that particular
its
and change
Amendment 2 may implicate
majoritarian
za
alter
US
393
structure
legislative
themselves
justification
leeway
fact that
popular
trl
no
may
State
distribute
for
Term Limits
Gordon v Lance
hnn5on
may
392 Nor does
greater
US
1849
to
authority
v Erickson
provide
US
States
retain
Hunter
however
393
47
Deference
State
and
initiative
Equal Protection
Next
is
that a
true
1978
basis to
provide any
713 72637
to
US 7 How
Amendment Hunter
referendum
377
60
Special
sovereignty
referendum
v Tuscaloosa
Fourteenth
state
generally
initiative
Any
to
STATE OBJECTIVE
from
General
4422
Assembly
19
government
the
1995
or that
requirements
entire areas
of
the
initiative
of
legislation
ROMER
Roy
from
the
State
in the
of
concept
starting
ultimate
No 1
US
status
10 By
The
full
bisexual
of
text
its
the
an
repealing
bisexuals
several
and
local
from discriminatory
actions
to
executive
District
would
enforce
government
be preemptively
What emerges
in
any
C The
be
is
it
both
that
invalid
if
Text
state
the
Pet Br
of
basis
intended
in
School Dist
Seattle
Pared
or
enactment
its
to
operative
its
policy
any claim
and
cover
Id
perceived need
whereby
of
protected
of
part
the
the
citizens
need
that
As
to
State
in state
F5
App
and
entities
what had been
against
promise
that
in
in
in their
the
told
the
that
in
at least
and
Colorado
and
higher
legislative
university
of
passage
and
six States
systems had
current protective
Colorado
growing
State
the
gays lesbians
employment
the
policies
would have no power

at state
responsiveness
gays lesbians and bisexuals from discrimination

voters
does so
it
steps
F6
Amendment 2 were enacted
if
officials
And
agencies
were apprised of
and 65 college and
Id
government
any
Prior to
protect
Specifically they were
governors
by
sexual orientation
taking
that effect
precisely
of Colorado
orientation
their
solely
local
sexual orientation
brientation
r exual
and
Constitution
Tof their
eight
sexual
F1
their
of
from
government
had recognized
orientation
however
App
Colorado
defined
citizens
because
suffer
they
bisex9ifrorniIscrimination
governmental
to protect
group of
explicitly disables state
It
have
to
Colorado
25 States
in
to
local
one
at
aimed
private based on
theecalis
were assured
and
is
discrimination
amendment
policies
future
in the
from
Amendment
of government
government had
Substantive
Cleburne
and
It
equally clear
is
twas
it
lesbians
the
on
clear
is
or
Amendment 2 offered Colorados
life
to
2s
that
past or
even under
the objective
31a
one
is
I
t
a
r
state
that
the
background
group of
would
Contained
v Cleburne Living Center 473

a legitimate
and
text
disfavored
in the
Choice
Policy
rationally related to
is
may
discrimination
bodies
and counties
cities
and
similar policies
levels to a
that
against
gays
voting
simultaneously
nullified
The Court has long recognized
Eg
that led to
campaign
brief
of Citizens
immediate objective
its
Washington
the
in at least
to
and
certain areas
same responsiveness
would
foreclosed
channels
area
In
legislation
voters
and public
private
ordinary
One Group
enact or enforce any law
otherwise be
or
and
effect
its
due
is
protected right
together with
see
in petitioners
government
discrimination based on sexual
to
Columbia 110
The Colorado
Colorado
of
of
antidiscrimination
directed
protect
nationwide
response
extended
policies
See Pet Cert App
education
local
1967
373
provision but by preventing

public
governmental
had adopted
or
of
out
set
is
of
act
makes
from any discrimination
state
effect
Its
from any
expressly
It
similarly
adopt
105 109 1967 vast leeway
a federally
amendment
the
369
in light
constitute
antidiscrimination
existing
citizens
its
and
bisexuals
11
US
local
Amendment
of
orientation
Amendment 2s enactment confirms
of
history
Amendment
in
terms of
the
of law
nor
state
shall
object
words
does not mince
to protect
the
should be
Amendment
that neither
runs afoulof
it
Addressing Disckimination Against
frond
validity
orientation
alone
lesbians
gays
protecting
not by simply
and
anti unless
v Mulkey 387
of
text
US
v Board ofRdtrcation 387
save
analysis
Reitman
personal characteristicsexual
Amendment
The
context
same
391
lesbian or
virtue
distinctive
future
only
WL 17008441
1995
claim of discrimination
or
from
any equal protection
amendment provides
the
homosexual
affairs
Sailors
Colorados Government
historical
at
and
Colorado
457 46264 1982 examining
US
Hunter 393
provisions
for
and
internal
its
of
supremacy
majoritarian
Disables
point
effect
458
of the State
management of
Amendment
The
Governor
as
in
in
the
citizens
so that
future
consider
Amendment
a rational
US
basis test
Is
12etttt=I
c3a
Em
is
not
could not seek
ether the
sking
entitled
wirl
was enacted
overnment must seek
432 440 198
simply
they
it
tJ
is
design
protection
to
close
off
the
from discrimination
Illegitimate
interest Said another way even
government
which
against
to
if
all
to
advance
a legitimate
classification
rationally or perfectly
advance
lvcrrinratt
nF
state interest
drawn by
furthers
the
statute
an objective
ROMER
Roy
Governor
as
The terms of Amendment

words
Colorados
alter
proclaims
message
terms
speech
rather
fails
it
the
law
of
against
impairing
terms on which
sense choices
direct
i2 gays
27 One
ex post
facto
how
could say
are free to
officials
may be
constitutionally
is
goal
discriminate
communicates
text
very
to
from public
II
many
not
on
to
it
the
an unmistakable
on unequal
treated
II
I1
mere choices
as
No
they
No
to the
ordinary
incomplete
sorely
crafted
not
are
and foremost
first
guarantees
law
be passed
shall
commonly
are
provisions
substantive
are
be
of
protecting
provides
committed
are
would
that description
similar
provisions
law
facto
the
instead to the will
Constitution
ex post
which decisions
But
decisionmaking
constitutional
of Colorados
10
about
equal privileges and
political
and committed
officials
states
Colorado by which
in
process
of Colorados
section
section
people themselves
the
speech
structure
decisionmaking
political
Article
Article
reserved
free
the
same however
the
laws
other
and
of speech
to
Its
bians and bisexuals
has been withdrawn
orientation
constitutional
of
and public
Its
word discrimination
the
Expressly using
maychange that
official
of any kind
so
aibad reason
Br 11
are
policy
private citizens
mere restructuring of
freedom
the
state
in
declares
effectively
and bisexuals from discrimination
both
body or
Amendmgt
and which
government
familiar
any
Pet
that
The amendment
inquiry
substantive
assembly Those too could be described
general
channels
2 as
threshold
that
announce
to
WL 17008441
1995
gays lesbians
12
or for
based on sexual
Eg
guarding
or
be passed
After
no reason
Amendment
defend
of discrimination
shall
in
but
constitutional
citizens
or
any reason
popular majority
The
that
protecting
structure
matter of state
Colorados
to
for
issue
by
be passed
shall
political
as a
Petitioners
free
demonstrate
and
Colorado
of
of sexual orientation and no governmental
basis
the
no law
that
of the State
freedomsso
Put
simply
rights
constitutional
When
a state
stands
declaration
cherished
13
an
as
affirmative
Amendment
no
is
secured
liberties
personal
right to
freely
The
right to
executive
4 positive
Just as
power
themselves
are
be passed
constitutional
freedom of
our
among
of
source
the
impairing
on laws
corelative
to
Colorados
right on
constitutional
prohibition
bnfYIY a
Amendment
377
at
constitutional
The use of
that
speech
constitutional
directed
a
at
right to
personal
Constitution
par with
free
expression and
expression confers
discriminate
elevates
it
the
a correlative
freely
As was
true
homes
By
its
prior
the
any
of
of any kind
in
the
personal choice
of
effect
States
the
They
may
immune
charter
Those
from
now invoke express
legislative
discrimination
practicing
constitutional
authority
sources
official
policy of
basic
government
state
from
elevatitg
cases have
now
voter
concerneg
for the
terms
in
not
is
jobs
Amendment
cases have
noninterference
salaries
lc
or
2013
of
in private
an
omon
is
public
of
their
with
in
entire
landscape
Ir
about
burdens
school
contrast
housing
racial
private
lin
is
of
1i
public
1fa
is
or barriers
blanket
discrimination
to
anything
erected
of
in
come before
to
narrowly defined
lowincome housing
endorsement
goods and
To be sure
virtually
a certain
and
ll
Amendment 2s goals When
unlike
14
services
every
degree
private
Ei`11t7Èit
of
all
of those
Nor
strategic
1No
group
is
it
limited
against public
are
other imaginable
discrimination
the
areas
of discrimination
programs or even discrimination
government employment
in t31
busing construction
or assistance
authorizes
legitimacy of
or publicly available
p6lf fthoieee with

It
the
by Amendment
priVafiedicrimiq1ation
at particular
1v1
political
food stamps
aimed
Route
to
housing
private
Amendment
other conditions
to
challenges
of governmental
legislation
waste
on
discrimination
2s sweep But so
lays
rentals
so
doubts
raises serious
itself
substantive policy endorsed
involved
and
and
provision
involved
indiscriminately
Next
limited to
in the
the
all
sales
retarded
mentally
it
and of
in
or limitation
similar
discrimination
within
describing
qualification
Until
employees
their
or interference
word discrimination
the
particular
on
level
level
used without
Court
at
aiId
US
387
is nowembodied
regulation
rely solely
from censure
free
shall
As an amendment
effect
or
of
status
of Rilits
discriminate
or judicial
need no longer
to
law
of the cherished place expression has
terms
its
to the
Bill
does
so too
in
either
enforcement
no
that
it
infringe
orientation
law
declares
acknowledgement
by Colorados
speak
and
lawmaking
federal
Reitman
in
of
the
different
discrimination based on sexual

other
like
government cannot
that
on
prohibitions
constitution
encompassed
kind
Where
precision Amendment
against
gays
lesbians
ROMER
Roy
and
bisexuals
governmental
Amendment
Governor
as
in
every segment of
or
populist
their
lives
established as
of
attribute
an
that
not
no
State
may deny any person
15
manifests
It
for all
less
Amendment
given
a politically
the
or
Court
directed
terms of
16
is
at
to
the
on
has recognized
basis
when
just as illegitimate
It
or what
level
of
the
Amendment
simply
ffi$re`1subtle
equally
at the
and
because
US
or
how
of
and
any purpose
deemed
categorically
desire to
majoritarian
1973
against
at hippies
even
of
this class
harm
group
any
sake
for the
Moreno
citizens
for
US
Cleburne 473
of discrimination
Cleburne
regardless
a single
against
for
never legitimate Ibid Discrimination
is
laws
its
policy of discrimination
528 534
endorsement
retarded
here
discrimination
by any
Fourteenth
the
of
protection
a difference
abare
than
other
of
passage
equal
than
law
constitutional
the
they have been
refined
or
ground
fears
mentally
illegitimate
the
Fakes
that
v Moreno 413
governmental
attitudes
as
it
described
is
insofar
as
it
case
in this
is
gays
to
directed
not simply whether
is
and
lesbians
may enact
a State
The
bisexuals
blanket
should
issue
policy of
be whether
nonsuspect
may
State
are
petitioners
the
such
would be
some unspoken
level
where
prejudice
or fear
mentally
retarded
that
a
reduces
to
to
dislike
this
GOVERNMENTAL
In the
amici
the
approach
that
of
vantage
the
is
fact
The difference
so ere
not do
RtWever
harm any group
US
if
of
thelegitinnacy
1rausel
to
of residency
any
number of other
popular
is
constitutionally
any
other
that
majoritys discomfort
no difference
447 The Court need go no
at
one
to
only be
can
terms single but
the
there
is
directed
is
on
and so
makeup
genetic
there
If
pregnant or
policy choice
even
indefensible
farther
these
than
for
settled
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
FROM
differently
the
is
17
policy
from
discrimination
this precise
may
a
to
as
of
although
question
should be analyzed from
a legitimate
its
structure
class
it
amendment
in the
expressed
a State
and
substantive
They defend Amendment
question should be whether

protection
A CLASS OF CITIZENS EQUAL ACCESS TO
DENIES
DISCRIMINATION
a legitimate
of
restructuring
so that
government
citizens
the
is
defined
principles
solely
state
all
by
underlying
of
that
perspective
That
is
one Petitioners however

Viewed from
government
its
branches
personal
are
powerless
None
characteristic
them demonstrate
that the
clear
no
that
precedents
Amendment
even
if
classifies
the characteristics
and bisexuals of equal
access
restriction
participation
willingness
to
citizens
its
unmarried persons
protecting
directed
of
case
Courts cases has considered
answer
The
the
length
class
any
wholesale policy of discrimination
accept
to
against
be passed
shall
could be
pregnancy
Proteefiffl
Equal
or
law
bisekual bUtwould
view Amendment 2s primary effect
any form of
provide
of
are willing
or
No
characteristics
534 Cleburne 473
at
PROTECTION
problem
perspective
the
of
point
US
amici
discrimination
provision
defend
to
willing
lesbian
for disapproval
413
be
similar
quotient
intelligence
their
gay
threshold question should be whether
the
to
States
the
such
declare
to
by common personal
and
are
authorize
constitution
would
jurisdiction
terms
Moreno
resolve
AMENDMENT
III
age infirmity
petitioners
the
From
bare
class
nonsuspect
precedents
any
its
from discrimination
group defined exclusively
nonsuspect
on
if
surprised
amend
could
as
Amendment
Fourteenth
retarded
mentally
classifications
We
the
a State
correct
or the
deaf
with
consistent
is
in
applies
scrutiny
should be asked
that
question
in
however
directed
is
a3eÌessequal
of Agriculture
of mere negative
race
contained
that
into
and
endorsement of wholesale
can be defendedonno
Dept
States
persons based on
Ultimately
citizens
no policy choice
reflects
provision
novel
as
reconstruction
bisexual statusisadistinclion
or
and bisexual
United
consistently
suspectness
its
kind
the
group
nonsuspect
of discrimination
when
reduces
It
unpopular
447 As
suspect
gay lesbian
Amendment
of equality
worthy
terms stands
sweeping
that
Colorado gays lesbians
In
discriminations sake
at
its
judgment
since
enacted
least
group
2 has been
at
country
citizenship
Amendment
like
Nothing
in this
body anywhere
WL 17048441
Colorado andi 1995
of the State of
on
combined
oNext
political
implicate
< J
13
equal
citizens
are not
to protection
protection
liomoorr
<
deemed
from
interests
Hco
of personal
basis
suspect
forms
all
than
values
to
the
on
ones The
their
in a parficularly
to
further
fact
that
brings
on
ii
ou`rtlhas
furdaientaYvay
inrol
>
fe
Moreover
rnrra
case
apart as a far
considered
previously
this
within
the
Courts
Amendment 2 deprives gays lesbians
discrimination setsthe provision

of
anything
alarm
characteristics
nrork
Those
they
more encompassing
aspects
distinguish
of
Amendment
Amendment
ROMER
Roy
numerous other public
the
from
and
as
contained
policies
States
in
WL 17008441
1995
that petitioners
constitutions
be threatened
fear will
Amendment
if
held invalid
is
rl
Amendment
2 Violates
The Court has observed

institutions
allocate
or
for
requirements
greater barriers
at
was
large
it
School
channels
ordinary
to require
from
No
the
of
to
equal
of
participation
within which
diverse
the
political
that
structure
or
provisions
when those
method of
our
in
groups
the
secure
society
Harlans
representatives
because
that
of governmental
benefits
may
terms pose
Justice
electing
was diluted The Court has reasoned

to
political
supermajority
neutral
46970 following
at
citys
community
in the
Laws
veto
even
US
1980
55
racial minorities
burden on every group
attack
Dist 458
US
v Bolden 446
principle
executive
as
protection
School
Seattle
goals
central
principlessuch
subject
18
any
they Amendment
is
explicitly
solely
on
citizens
to
of prejudice
See
classbased
their
2
personal
focuses
their constitution
change
as a
as
neutral
compete
fairly
Seattle
to
seeking any
of
political
decisionmaking
process
restructuring
separate
whereas
may
other groups
all
discrimination
on
US
out
characteristics
directly
458
carves
It
predicate
Scho<lDist
Seattle
Amendment
defend
to
attempt
Moreover Amendment
government
condition
special
the
make
amici
their
one group of
this
policy
one group of people based
for
majoritarian will
not
ofMobile
framework
nor could
decisionmaking
their
neutral
simple but
cases yield
to
4709
at
nor
petitioners
City
imposes an equal
just
US
Dist 458
Neither
achieve
also
even though
structure
provides
according
amendmentsare
for minorities to
constitutional
Principles of Neutrality
protection
power
political
see
equal
its
constitutional
a neutral political
action
that
Hunter
in
concurrence
Equal
Protection
alters the
It
process
political
would
that
legislation
them
protect
486
at
No
can
do
area
of
nonsuspect
one should
anything
those
citizens
bisexuals
in the
as
of
bias
public
uniformly have
inflict
SCt 2194
These
found
distinct
2201
all
is
not
in
and
of
to
matter
respond
to
Jones
conclude
fundamental
That
protection
Next
harms on
their
and
laws
cannot
remedy
at
gay lesbian
or
great individual
and
victims
incite
of
the
for
government
status
That
is
as
itself
And
goals such
as
crimes motivated
even
though
harm because they provoke

unrest See
community
and
gays lesbians
basis for
true
to
employees
public
of governmental
basic
any
lesbians
gays
greater penalties for violent
societal
in
laws addressed
on an unequal
most
the
bisexual
and
by
employment
government
bisexuals
where
interest
discrimination
administered
serve
fully
and
accommodation
compelling
conditions
are
of Colorados
lesbians
gays
public
impose correspondingly
directed
result in particularly
fundamental
problems
legislation
to
of
way
US
at
is
the
the
in
essence
of
l
I
rfisut
the
the
10c u
against
by
to
class
of
heightened
Board of Education
private
for
government
458
particular
39th
it
declares
US
Wisconsin
It
is
one
group
the
States
retaliation
v Mitchell
of persons
that
to
no
11o 1st4
t1
1a
oIgii11
J> ovel13r
cI
It
113
to
It
choice
tAOI
1866
shall
1<
is
an
deny
existing
altogether
power
all
runs headlong
licable
13
21
them from classbased

State
repeal
12
1982
government
its
disenfranchisement
simply
code not
Scss 2766
to protect
to divest
may be deprived of
Such
laws
Wl
thing
of government
1st
able
Assuming such
527 53839
citizen
Cong
empowered
when
should be
State
citizens
scrutiny
`fòre caste
subjeetittg
Clause guarantees
No
its
branches
judicial
Cong Globe
quoting
being governed
equal protection
41
protection
of what
subject
ececutivekahd
or
values
protection
for a single
be
least
legislative
412 424 1981
interest
equal
Los Angeles
Crawford v
core
at
discrimination
should
it
that the
Clauses
v Helms 452
jurisdiction
is
serve
that
prevent or
firing
neutral
government
of discrimination public
any form
have
its
in a
illegitimate
Equal Protection
the
the bias
20
emotional
strike
itself
antidiscrimination
different
crimes
the
Colorado cannot
example
that bias
address
to
authority
Colorado
either
hiring
otherwise
in
branch
1993
consequences
of
in
hate crimes where
socalled
crimes
order For
or the
against
interest
cannot
government
its
19
compelling
government
cannot respond where
significance
and`legal
discrimination
have
and services
benefits
As troubling
and bisexuals
maintaining
Nor can Colorados
state
government
i
by
Slates
Colorados
groups
suspect
distribution
Colorados
practical
private
10
concerned
are
2s
or
Thus even though
lives
well
as
Amendment
underestimate
remedy any form of public
to
the
use
to
to
into
another
All
citizens
discrimination
any person within
ROMER
The
net
render
effect
the
Governor
as
of any
from seeking
redress
ordinarily defers to
be
relied
Reserves
courts
classbased
divestment
discrimination
for
the political
should
groups
See Carolene Products
their state constitution
have been
Petitioners
Petitioners
Petitioners
fault the court
this
have
purely
been
otherwise
Hunter
fails to
it
does
denies
recognize
that
as
an
and
openended
could range
invitation
from
claim
they
23
to
has informed
vague and boundless

that
the
court
right
recognized
shared personal
withdraw
issue
to
the
governed
the
issue
will
See
to
as a prerequisite
fiL
ti+
Ct
of
Pet
It
was
is
no
the
voters
Courts
3334
equal
l33
to
it
that
tlE
answer
the
to
the
of
In their
that
of
gays
Colorado
heightened
because
Petitioners
of political
types
involved
to explicit class
case
like
precisely
and
Hunter
like
this
scrutiny
the political
more
is
Petitioners
than
troubling
easy
recognize
At
this
the
other
involved
or
kind suspect
differs
case
and
law
the
of
the
of which
of any
between
distinction
to
fails
At one end
all
Valtierra
as
goal
limited to
classifications
one Although
decision
common
should be
cases
distinctions
from
its
argument
of Mobile
City
different
share
cases
structure
explicit racial
Gordon and
they read
that
those
view
1971
choice
Gordon
at
issue
from
in that
Hunter
in
case and Hunter
this
constituency
Colorado
seek
to
against
Htc
laws
to
States constitution
state
invalidate
victims
on both
sides
rights
of all
similarly
courts holding
That
argue
right
that
is
the
the
in a
Equal
essence of what
voters
in
bisexuals
democracy
Protection
was narrow The

directed
all
Clause
the
Colorado
to
and
have
merely
that
constituencies
the
24
exercised
and
government
no person should have
the
to
on
participation
solely
Protection
Equal
of
principle
case based
of political
power ultimately flows from

is
courts
Pet Br 3538
to
this
group defined
the
federal
the state
antiabortionists
issues
resolve
right
embroil
policy
allegiance
words of
from Colorados
will
view
include
polarized
Supreme Courts analysis nor show
the
They
constitutional
advocates
The Colorado Supreme Court did not
gays lesbians and
the
to
redress for discrimination
To be sure
point of
the
16
in h
contained
racial classifications
beyond
lfunter
tax protesters to
decisions
therefore
themselves
ost
any
is
alike and persons
sexual orientation
protection
in
Are Misplaced
directed
extendm
every policy
prior
a limited right
But
of
position
not
is
that
is
rise to
22
number of groups
broadly
And Amendment
any disappointed
credit
of discrimination
Br
considered
of political participation Rather
characteristic
themselves guarantee
to
this
same
Energy
properly
other similarly situated
point
Supreme Court because

any
that
District
137
Pet Br 1924
classes
consider two
US
to
too
progeny
School
terms
runs
that
suspect
402
boy scout troops
do
that
its
to
Amendment
Colorado
the
from discrimination
virtually
Petitioners
neutrality
have given
also
function
in the
Court
similarities
nonsmokers
neither
the
iscalled for precisely
ny
see
486 The point
at
Rather
that traditionally
disabilities
by
classification
and proabortionists smokers and
hypotheticals
and
other
perhaps primarily
of reviewing
task
US
Dist 458
constitutionalpurposes
of
the rights
the
ordinarily to
processes
1938
processes
legislative
to protect
actively
Invalidating
applied
Seattle
protection
more profound
alternatively
argue
very
Decision
classneutral
all
144 152
to
is
Valtierra
racial
on
operate
entire class
their
courts in a ceaseless
decision
not
an
for
Heightened
occasion
has not
political
US
X04
on which
basis
operation of those
Co
School
Seattle
decisionmaking and were not
Court
the
more
intervene
participation
and
the
power
and bisexuals
lesbians
14
perhaps
James v
as
does not involve
it
and
Hunter
as
for political
now
Until
Petitioners
such
The
reading Hunter
has only had
such
cases
cases
for
curtails
quasisuspect
status
of political
initially
Court
the
terms
in that
because
or
review
heightened
the
enforcement
gays
negates
It
400 417 n 25 1983 where
153 accord
achieves
2 itself
right
Amendment
that
to
US
courts to
at
government
v Carglene Products
by Amendment
racial minorities
case
neutral
the
unqualified
spectrum have been

end
of
critical
an
burdens placed on
until
suspect
States
it
law
forecloses
Colorado gays lesbians and bisexuals have been placed
Concerns About the Reach of
are
announcing
are
codified
Amendment
that
US
for
Amendment 2
of
and
lawmaking
ordinary
before
channels
ordinary
459
In
304
of governments
States
has caused
them
relegates
constitutionally
powerlessness
that
a class
as
the
Co
findings
that
powerlessness
and bisexuals
lesbians
of
WL 17008441
1995
was suspect
it
the
through
Light
defer to legislatures
political
not
United
Group v Kansas Power
and
Colorado
or
judgments
minorities
general
whether
suspect
to protect
upon
of
such
class
targeted
of the State
$e
Roy
their
to
Clause
authority
entrust that
consent
seek
by
that
of
the
consent
Roy
ROMER
Nor did
on
the
the
So understood
as marital
the
term
with which
neutrality
See
align
based
classification
Court has been
the
on personal
solely
17
law enforcement
authority
some
unpopular
based on
of
likelihood
to
Contrary
It
Colorados
their
defined by
common
or
Court
on
viewpoint
what
Amendment 2
short
and
School
Seattle
review because
protection
Even
and
Women
Mississippi Universitylbr
Equal
have
but they
offer the
rational
basis
a legitimate
inquire
challenged
the
denial
statute
review
it
does
way
to
line
113
whether
avoid fraud
rational
M13
hot
413
nm
urge
to
that
review
many
at
Rfotol
only
citizens
have
to
their
test
stating
classes
access
equal
less
is
examples
enforcement As
this
declared
to
with
Court
subject to
27
in
means and
Hunter
heightened
governmental
a particularly
intermediate
for
would
much
all
the
of
basis
worry
constitutionally
should be
chosen
at
most of
were before
it
the
on
divests
18
come forward
the
are
19`
rational
desired
scrutiny
weighty
ends See
Petitioners
of
the
by
state
even
successfully
In
support of
their
undoubtedly could be established

courts
under
the
19
The
rationales
more generous
petitioners
standards
of
3
whether
given
the
in the
breadth
focusfirst
households occupied
relationship
its
law and
challenged
inquiry
Amendment
defend
to
rational justifications
and
program The question
the
US
that
provisions
provision
they pursued
amendhjlent
laws terms
the
in the
that
in
abortion law
life
or private
between
fit
amendment
the
CAN BE OR HAS BEEN ADVANCED
sdveral
The
drawn by
is
as the
1982
724
SCt 2637 264243
To make
denied food stampsto
to
was
sustain
v Doe
purpose
and ask
718
press
food stamps based on
fraud
Next
what
close
Supreme Court reached
target
eg
special
heightened review of any kind
rational basis
petitioners
and decline
not adequate
asks
it
legislation
as
denying
of avoiding
are
governmental
why
rational
review See Heller
basis
Rational
is
of public
and
1979
that petitioners
reflected
broad impact
would
petitioners
a
explicitly
or reflect
568 593
bold stroke
policies
characteristic
as a structural
FOR AMENDMENT
at least satisfy
Court only three
however
advance
they must
Amendment 2
that
argument
that
US
458
satisfy
JUSTIFICATION
recognize
review
2 can
IV NO RATIONAL
viewed
demonstrate
to
Hogan
Amendment
that
Petitioners
is
US
Colorado
that the
constitutional
and
aspect
any
may create
group however defined has been
the
Clause values
Protection
that
satisfy
properly do not argue
in
lines
In a single
deny asingular group of Colorados
to
power
To
would
they
where
explicit
particularly sensitive to classifications
is
v Beazer 440
examples
of
and sometimes
States lawmaking
that
must be
the
unrelated
line
on
bears
what
the
laws goals For
Court properly
household inhabitants
asked
was
rational
relationship
does Then
a court
example
The
cohabitants
some
law
federal
was whether
a rational
in
28
to
must
Moreno
the
government defended
the
line
drawn
one not whether
by
the
the
goal
53538
No
tlai
The
issues
The formeran
politics
for allocating
such
result
neutrality
people generally
of
by
solely
Colo 1993
as to
and bisexuals from discrimination
lesbians
of general concern
Amendment2
if
discrimination
all
to
the
not
is
Amendment 2
in
gays
from discrimination
offensive
as
issue
case
Authority
myriad examples of
circumstance
posits
protection
District
interest
governmental
or social
Transit
2 Few of petitioners
26 The only group
characteristic
personal
allocates political
it
from
is
the
basis
special likelihood that
class
one
unlike
is
a satisfactory
128486
in the
Courts precedents
such not
as
stuff
25
the
with
American
daily
the
reflected
Amendment
invalidates
a political
of governmental
it
of
the
Equal Protection Clause
in this
amendment and defined
the
identified
the
majority New York
to protect
so
of
unprecedented
is
ability
doing
shared
because
persons
merely
is
of
text
consistent
shifting coalitions
latter
Court has observed
the
the ruling
more important none of them
unworthy
In
of any
In
traitsrarely
and
as to
ever provides
if
of majoritarian power
exercise
the
if
of
and
diverse
142 The
at
or affiliation
claims
characteristics
be jeopardized
the
As
trait
part
government
class
classes
the
on
petitioners
nature of
the
is
bias
US
402
Valtierra
in the
term
identified
understood
best
is
can be
that
any group
that
Evans v Romer 854 P2d 1270
See
contend
a neutrality
refer to
to
assume Rather
out
singled
or disability
is
group
identifiable
petitioners
petitioners
concerned
and broad impact around which
general concern
predictably
age
as
group expressly
intelligence
much narrower than
both
is
to refer to a
is
status
views
political
WL 17008441
1995
term independently
the
or shared
interests
was usedthat
it
such
trait
personal
common
of
which
in
context
Supreme Court use
Colorado
basis
and
as
tl
kS
R7iIC
illxf
UUj
nl
l0
ANo1k
11
Roy
ROMER
Properly
laws
of
government
of
the
to
voters
When
inquiry
the
enacted
is
for
group
homes
basis in specific
Even
apart
best
the
misdirected
discrimination
limited
at
the
rationales
arguments
half
State
to
The problem
as
to
at
traits
the
the
Zobel
there
is
private
a
laws
on
those
other than prejudice
at
at
basis
the
it
one
that
is
justifications
for
iernbl
when
not
tatter
It
measure
defense
that
of
offer
surely
measure
governmental
it
rational
only
US
prospective
on
policy
that
to
equally
the
law
to
authorizes
and
carefully
provides
rationale offered
not
the
that
at all
defective
legally
select
adopt
on
not
authorized
55 6163 1982
of
or
categorically
by reference
portion
rational
eg
zoning
special
terms
and
Given
purposes
distinguish
own
its
just as
is
is
it
to
are logically
and
eg
purposes
is
discrimination
Williams 457
the
wlt
they
just as
the
all
must be defended
the justifications
the
Cher
what
is
that
retarded
mentally
for certain
question should be whether
relevant
branches
By way of analogy
transparent
against the
them
orientation
is
policy
differentiate
could save only
classification
of
to
the
because
status
individuals
needed See Zobel v
is
or bisexual
In
divesting
bisexuals
governmental
all
those
of sexual
discrimination given
divest
differentiate
rationales
petitioners
defense
proffered
rational
forr>
discrimination
to
rational to
Similarly here
the
of underinclusiveness
relationship
US
a point
be
make
authorizes
of
whole
the
focus
457
on
petitioners
citizens
2
from any form of discrimination
protection
a
and
gays lesbians
against
gay lesbian
more uniform
private
drawn by Amendment
line
choice
policy
of
interests
portion
by
based
enactment
not simply one
some point
render
approval
is
focus
length of residency
sustain
on residency before
Rather
of
of any kind
on
no
the
wholesale policy of discrimination
gays lesbians and bisexuals
against
rationale where
only
may
it
does not
29
relate to private
favor
in
defend
capacities
fact
Amendment 2
of
inadequacy
retarded
mentally
contexts
from
of those
public
that
policy of discrimination
a categorical
All
for the
the
as readily
and physical
some kinds of employment But
based
associational
have
or to
regulation
government
or
whether
categorical
blanket
the
is
is
make no overture whatsoever towards
one could
intellectual
the
less
moral
discrimination
must defend
here
rational
framed
correctly
have
to
religious
of discrimination
any problem
Petitioners
approach
petitioners
their particular
to
respond
the
and public
Petitioners
does What must be
rational
is
WL 17008441
1995
rational The question
private
end
a legitimate
Colorado
using
address
to
it
with
interfering
of course
are
and
Colorado
not whether
is
avoid
to
objectives
to
authority
Amendment
seek
authority
means
of the State of
question here
to
or
those
abstract
rational
the
focused
statewide
the
Governor
as
between
characteristics
6163 Moreno
which
laws
the
or private
the
bias
loose
irrational
US
413
fit
Amendment
to
of achieving
or
defining
its
2 far
at
personal
arbitrary
535
or
objectives
that
in the
nicety
and
invidious See
Said another
purported
exceeds
mathematical
characteristics
the
stated
Cleburne 473
way when
provides no
real
law
way
goal
the
US
focuses
confidence
lines
becomes
at
are
446 citing with
on unpopular
that
it
drawn
so attenuated
rests
personal
on anything
point
30 CONCLUSION
For
the
reasons
Respectfully
stated
above
the
Colorado
Supreme Courts judgment
should be
affi
submitted
THEODORE R KULONGOSKI
Attorney
General of
THOMAS
Oregon
BALMER
Deputy Attorney General
VIRGINIA
LINDER
Solicitor
twNext
licarlio
kruters
tIo
tÌaiIT
oliillfllI
tJtrn111ilit
ENS
General
Roy
ROMER
Governor
as
of the State of
Colorado
and
1995
WL 17008441
MICHAEL
Assistant
REYNOLDS
Solicitor
General
RIVES KISTLER
Assistant
Counsel
June
Attorney
for
General
Amici Curiae
19 1995
APPENDIX A
LIST
District
of
Columbia
Garland Pinkston
Acting
One
441
Jr
Counsel
Corporation
Judiciary
Square
4th Street
Washington
State
of
OF THE AMICI CURIAE
NW
DC
20001
Iowa
Thomas J Miller
General of
Attorney
Hoover
State
Office
Iowa
Building
Des Moines Iowa 50319
State
of
Maryland
J Joseph Curran Jr
Attorney
200
General of
Saint
Baltimore
Maryland
Paul Place
Maryland
21202
vNext c 1013
1h
rrsari
Reuters
No
ini
to
>ilcflnol
VAIor<s
13
ROMER
Roy
as
Governor
State
of Massachusetts
Scott
Harshbarger
One Ashburton
WL 17008441
Place
Boston Massachusetts
02108
of Minnesota
State
Hubert
Humphrey
III
General of Minnesota
Attorney
St
Colorado and 1995
General of Massachusetts
Attorney
102
of the State of
State
Capitol
Paul Minnesota 55155
Nevada
of
State
Frankie
Sue Del Papa
General of
Attorney
Capitol
Complex
Carson City
of
State
Nevada
89710
Oregon
Theodore
Attorney
100
Nevada
Kulongoski
General of
Justice
Oregon
Building
Salem Oregon 97310
State
of Washington
Christine
Attorney
General of Washington
Highways
PO
Gregoire
Licensing
Building
Box 40100
tt
Rt
text
st1
11
io
n on R
utors
No moil
to
original
US
Cove
nnt Work
Roy
ROMER
Governor
as
of the State of
and
Colorado
WL 17008441
1995
Olympia Washington 98504
Footnotes
Counsel
Some
Stat
for
DC
of the
Several
for
example
The
Br 1718 Moreover
serves
state
legitimate
alternative
Transatlantique
Pet
Consistent
with
the
posture
2 The
Amendment
Evans
severable
amendments
in
Court
See
to
homosexuals
In
Reitman
Pet
Cert
or
See
other
any
the
Hunter
to
busing
United
case
the
in
States
1971
137
promote
Dept
local
Amendment
and
local
override
Democracy
the
own
executive
by
Mass
eg
See
12515a 1981
to
the
Gen
real estate
and by
order
Board
Contractors
electorate
even
through
ch
151
NJ
sales
administrative
rule
Veterans
of
Department
for decades
collectively
of analyzing
Colorado
the
See
See Def Ans
Amendment
that
decided
the
rationally
on
case
properly before
the
Court See McGoldrick
v Compagnie
we
on
sexual
conduct
is
first
1994
basis test
Court
Supreme
were
procedures
94748
asserts
recall
the Oregon system
a rational
argument which
basis
though
under
it
recall
as
TEMPLE L REV 947
and
referendum
initiative
referendum and
initiative
67
course
rational
has
group
no
See
an
Generale
US
referenda
government
any
because
legislative
That
of
under
distinctions
US
individuals
the
vNext`
relevant
where
there
is
zoning
of
were
in
this
brief
in
not
with the
campaign
opinion Nor do
we
of
this
concept
discrimination
enact
to
concern
kind
in
provisions
of
granting
minority
housing
Somewhat
in
is
status
on
only a restriction
permit required
local
for operation
funds to residents based
household members
indebtedness
or increase
more
concerning racial religious
specifically
as
contained
to
it
and the
have
many
it
suspect
enacted
is
whether
and
in
school board authority

of group
homes
length of
on
in
denied participation
taxes James v
future
and
adopted
time Amendment
See de
constitution
later
`Sha
enacted
for the
residency
food
stamp
402
US
Colorado by
state
Valtierra
in
Reed
would presumably
Colo
194
provisions
367 370
impliedly repeal
otherwise
sexual orientation
does
sign that says
can
be a legitimate
groups sometimes yes
quasisuspect
circumstances
not
later
general ones
never contended
for suspect
and
policies present
one
Colorados
not decide
even
or even
in
govern over
need
is
and
statutes
not
suggest
any
men
only
sexual orientation
to
participate
in
dissenting
may
and
provide
contribute
The
Court
a sensible
to
properly should
ground
leave
for another
society
Id
at
for different
reason
to
basis for
and
some
sometimes
presume
looks very different
44041
treatment
Mot
rison
ati<
is
Ni<Itsitn
c>t
igift
Al
tJ=S
Gov
rr
im
rit
vvcrks
day the
on
question
or instead bears
majority opinion
Court
2013
court
set out
prohibitions
focus of the
popularity
the
ordinances
government
unrelated
bonded
private
on
concerned
District
provision
Court
reason
at
narrowly
special
1973
528
Petitioners
be
its
1993
other
or
practices
prohibitions
ourselves
not the
district
despite
1023
refprendum
distribution
provisions
under some
46869 Marshall J
at
ability
likely will
not concern
and were
the
law
state
other
low income housing
guarantee
that the
which
P2d
8156
the
it
no
relevant
bathroom
door
circumstances
specific
be
US
specific
constitutional
breadth
supra
antidiscrimination
more
of a conflict
2s
The answer
may
a courthouse
Cleburne 473
before
extent
other circumstances
door than
specific
Amendment
a characteristic
as the
equal protection
earlier enactments to the

is
any
School
required to incur
approve
nullifies
Moreover
generalized
to
wasdifegtecl
1982
of
measure App B
status
issue required a
Moreno 413
necessary
2 without question
55
question
not
orientation
not reach
gg
nieq
Seattle
did
we do
Similarly
of the
minority
Cleburne
and
as a matter
because
Or406 414
recognized
also
v Williams 457
gfAgriculture
of
only
present a different
analysis
amendment
housing Likewise
whole
Colo 1994
may
317
arnendmentm
charter
in
grants
focus
to orientation
holding
as a
council
Keisling
courts
its
134950
which
governmental
Mabon v
lower
limited
legislative
integration
P2d 821 823 1977
572
the
of the
where
were known
in
legitimacy
amendment
the
program Gordon v Lance supra referenda
It
2s
Court
constitutional
city
retarded Zobel
mentally
of
concept
or ancestral discrimination
use
the
Supreme
App
the challenged
in
of
v Romer 882 P2d 1335
with the
narrowly
below
Construction
State
provisions
petitioners
Amendment
invalidated
incomprehensible
legally
the
Br 13 3948 Thus
Pet
of
the
participation
Constitutional Direct
Amendment
of
references to quota preferences
measure
ourselves
to
result
Ann
430 434 1940
The Colorado
relationships
US
such
sexual orientation
Code
policies
been
having
of
DC
adopted similar policies
from
of direct
with
subsumed
is
question
309
basis
Br 1416
the
issue
objectives
the
ground
As
of State
Origin
the
traditions
credited
illegitimacy
have
ranging
agencies
long
exercised
raised the
Respondents
Other States
their antidiscrimination
in
generally
and
Schuman
generally
is
20
than
have
States
amict
the
on
Ann 12512a 1981 employment
sexual orientation
discussed
seriously
statutes prohibiting discrimination
Code
example more
include
Oregon
enacted
1054 1994 employment
Oregon
Affairs
have
States
employment
Rev
In
Record
of
No
specific
no
under what
relation
policy choice
to
is
170084419
Roy
ROMER
The
Governor
as
of impartial
principle
and
laws
of the State of
that
regulations
of
governance
governments
and
Colorado
course
not
is
And
adopt
WL
1995
to questions
lilnitnd
governance
impartial
governmental
involving
a value
is
form
extends equally
it
even where nonsuspect
be served
to
to the
classes
are
evenhandedly
concerned
For example
The Equal
Protection Clause
in
a case
announces
a fundamental
comply
this
4th
New
10
York City Transit
See
Roberts
the importance
is
groups
602
take
et
In
such
to
California
As
the
from
Court
race
That
Id
14
is
sir
at
424
class
all
23
minority group that

to
squarely
gays
15
In
lowincome
could
include
challenged
16
the
The
state
The
housing
right
that
would
from
is
having
of
the
profit
social
to
required
that
the
equally
category
USC
and 20
1973
cannot
routinely refused
US
state
Id
to
not require
In
from
536
at
than the
in
could
532
at
legislature
required
issue
courts
state
458
a greater obligation
at
of
this
citizens
it
Amendment
Act
law
the
into
falling
departments
provide
theamendment
potent
or
for such
Colorados government
States
or bisexual
individuals
antidotes
holding
the
enacting
or
12
federal
It
merely
constitution
did not disable
Crawford
state
it
the
39th
ai
See
to
the
one which
John
the
preceded the
adoption
of
the
can
claim
of
caste
the
poorest
persons
most
the praise of a just
code
despised
or the
most wealthy
to
not
of the
most haughty
Government
Sess 2766 1866
1st
unwillingness
more on
based
Hart
stereotypes
to
majoritarian
of government
and
to respond to the
fear than
on
their
interests
to
such
a position
San Antonio
process
of a
1980
153
now de jure Amendment
is
groups relegated
political
needs
assessment
realistic
DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST
Ely
of those
interests
the
that
one
the
humblest
most powerful
unresponsiveness
from
of subjecting
mjutce
de facto
generally
debate
theSenate
in
gives tothe
it
Cong
of the
governments
gives
only
made
it
witththe
distinctions
protection
from
that
specifically
on
the
in the
poor
political
voice
discrimination
as well
persons
amendments
is
in
as a class
with
The
favor
majority
of
Id
at
of
In
2 thus
political
School
Independent
by
and
live
in
it
The
on
participation
Amendment
as those
the
special
id
referendum
at
would
dissent
provisions
142 which
have
of
course
the
analyzed
145
political
affairs insofar
viewed
low income housing
who might
clearly affected
government
based on
point
as those
interference
process
in
this
advocating
anyone
housing
to
on
company
at
broadly
an effective
from
it
irrational
dissent parted
directed
focused
reflect
and
1973
28
equally
and
as
role in safeguarding
special
Pal
law
law
the
was
point
the
arisen out
to society
extraordinary
and
them from
before
bisexuals the
as directed
repeatedly
protect
class
and
to be
to participate
bisexuals
contribute
before
understand
the object
who might
provisions
and
and
US
majority
this
and does away
States
historically has
frequently
411
those
court
status
command
to
as
laws
political
to administer
Rights
police
did not prevent
imposed
it
Amendment 2
bf
expression
Howard Cong Globe
Senator
in
the
protection
the judiciarys
v Rodriguez
Valtierra
for
as
same
constitution
Fourteenth
extent
some
lesbian
most
met Laws
not
is
Voting
in
Amendment
amendment
the
and
disfavored
against
the
obligation
Colorado
local
gay
state
laws than the
Unlil4e
arise
of discrimination
an effective
in
more
or
the
1973
counterparts
Fourteenth
clause to the
Reirman
have
clause ofits
extent the
to note that
protection
and
establishes equality
lesbians
implicates
powerlessness
Dist
is
participate
for
Colorado
careful
problem
government
quoting
Suspect or quasisuspect
of ability
was
the
violated
is
accommodation
public
way Among
defines
USC
42
assaults are
It
and the
rights
republican
the
legislation
another
to
same
the
of those
protection
except to
eg
See
example one
the victims
equal
equal
Jones
in
for
if
Amendment
abolishes
applicable
the
Hunter
addressing
observed
when
Court
constitutions
distinguishing
the Fourteenth
This
effectively
unit adopts a rule
principle
advancement
discriminate
that obligation
if
liability
that
economic
sometimes
that specially
of which
both
broader antidiscrimination
enforcing
state
53839
Act
this
Ibid
and evenhanded
fair
to
rise
alike
groups
Handicapped
segregation
the
that gives
nonsuspect
amended
school
from
government
13
for the
constitutional
courts
at
and
suspect
in a
in Roberts
barriers to
officials
public
laws
rules that apply
governmental
whether
the question
observed
the
groups
with legislation
directly
group and
cannot respond
remedy
repealed the
Id
problem
or charge assault crimes
amendment
state
It
steps
Crawford
busing
at
the
Court
of removing
which
neutral
General
Only when
1979
disadvantaged
in
ways
otherwise
dd
diction
juri
5681588
to society
certain
insidious
disfavored
seg Education
investigate
12
address
to
directed
most
its
609 626 1984 The

and
individual
administer
to
of some
for the benefit
been
of the
is
US
US
440
v Beazer
468
to the
the persons subjecf to
all
historically plagued
decline
to
discrimination
have
S Jaycees
one
Historically
than
less
Authority
both
have
that
integration
11
on
impact
Court stated
gove
principle
w44
that has special
the
users
mu01 st
e State
principle
persons within the jurisdiction unquestionably
to all
methadone
for
employmentpolicies
involving
persons
Amendment
issues of discrimination
because
deem
2
it
alters
or redress
it
bars
beneficial
the
gay
men
to seek
political
lesbians
legislation
process
so that a
discrimination absent the
antidiscrimination
targeted
consent
prohibited
issues
redress
from
Evans v
obtaining
majority ojthe electorate
ofa
as a
consideration
whole
by
the
Romer 854 P2d 1270
lIEOison
from
state
normal
1285
legislative executive
through
the
and
adoptiOu
local
political
judicial protection
of acdnstittitional amendment
control
AtiiJMJ tent 2s
processes
les
outòne
from
Rather than attempting
form of
to
discrimination
withdraw
and removes
its
ti
Colo 1993 emphasis added
Reuters
No
claim
tonriUn<sl
US
< ovormn+Y11
Works
ts
Roy
ROMER
The
17
Governor
as
notion
that
with denials
courts
is
characteristics
of the State
or dilutions
ordinarily raise
no
School Dist 395

To
the
illustrate
from
enacting
participation
if
621
state
they
Eighth
For
same
support
22
for
That
Amendment
reason
argues
an
may
governmental
resources
submit second
familial
and
Amendment
and
legal
that
2 as a
contend
way
predictability
to
in
provide
have
not
by preempting
would
The
an
act
under
local
the
personal
by
is
that
disadvantage
the
a
t
fJ
on
grant
laws directed
punished
in
addict
petitioners
privileges
Stat
It
Amendment
does
narrowly
Am
Br
based
on
Ala
decision
special
as
constitutionally
group Or Rev
it
case
broadly to
status as an
by Alabama
of
political
analogous
the basis of their status
Court
antithesis
and
governments
from
more
persons
may be
that
oversight
from
of private
not deprive
discrimination
discrimination
any
659165
does
such
thus giving
Pet
Br 4347 Third
large employers and
saves
Pet Br 4143
discrimination so that individual citizens
their convictions
C 2013Ihomson
vr
heaters
No
not
group
last
religious
petitioners
owners
limited
Petitioners
for associational
and
property
claim
to
Union Free
greater
defend
economic
Pet Br 4748
affairs
ii4
rhomscl1
apt
brief filed
would
that
decisions
issue as laws directed
Supreme
characteristics
of protection
deserving
private
the
Next E<>O13
not
punishing
Colorado
local
nonsmokers
citizens
intoxication
therefore
government
reducing
compromise
Document
lay
prohibiting
same
The amicus
laws
specially
is
example
1962
660
personal
concerned
factors
bond
Kramer v
petitioners hypotheticals
of public
been
extrinsic
on
revenue
disenfranchises
protecting
on
focus
has
status
military
not present the
US
statute
on
based
uniformity in laws statewide
their private
do
problematic
invalid
laws that
more
groups
to
be
that underlies
370
not
Such
be passed
shall
1968
514
levels
that
Court
but also
1969
701
amendment
amendment
the
discrimination
2 rationally protects
reasonsdo
the
which
1966 wealth
663
1965
89
constitutional
locale
California
US
any group
Amendment
that
law
assumption
enacted
be
still
from
protection
for suspect or other
Amendment
personal
local
not disadvantage
governmental
petitioners
neutrality
Ordinances
Specifically
of
Oregon
that prohibit discrimination
no
a particular
would
statute
barring
ability to seek
in
that
US
US
383
lines
along
in
characteristics
personal
US
at local
ensure neutrality are
ensures
merely
laws
the
Powell v Texas 392
that
does
to
Robinson
Compare
with
merely
it
the theory
to declare that
Contrary
that
cases
rights
ofHouma 395
ofElections
Rash 380
change
smoking
that
however
to
sexual orientation while simultaneously
of the
End
eg
engage
statutes
example
statute
seeks
discrimination
Rd
voting
on
only
v Cif
suggestion
on
invalid
not
decisionmaking
political
Courts
Cipriano
Carrington
petitioners
longer
realign
Virginia State
were amended
or status
endorse discrimination
19
of
people
characteristics
personal
violates
the
which
in
activities
no
can
to
with the
eg
WL 17008441
1995
rights based
See
tax status
might be
laws
efforts
also consistent
concerns
consider
constitution
smokers from any form

to
1969
antismoking
would
is
participation
political
distinction
of
suspicious
It
and
Colorado
taxpayers Harper v
US
because
arise
of
be
correct
equal protection
be made by property
18
should
intuitively
of
io
to
i14i
tight
Govxtin
eni
tilVtsil<>
to
original
US
Government
Works
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 14 2014 1 55 25
Subject
RE
Thank you
From
Sent
To
surreal
is
It
PM
As promised
Joyce Anna
mailto
Wednesday
May 14
anna joyce
doj state or us
2014 12 43 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Here
This
As promised
s the brief that Gini
all
feels so surreal
still
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
and Rives did
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Jenny
Sheila H
MADKOUR
Perkins
Coie
Kevin Diaz
jenny
m morf
Misha Isaak
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 15 2014 5 03 48
PM
Subject
Geiger Rummell
CONFIDENTIAL
Mary Williams
for people
to
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
Johnson
justicelawyers
com
aclu or org
CC
Proposed language
Coie
Tom
multco us
Perkins
mary h
msn com
williams
proposed
toss around
and
work
Plaintiffs
Motions
language
from
ORDER
The
Court having
the
County
and
considered
parties in support
motions filed
of
Court finds that
the
benefits
The
ECF Nos
their motions and

there
is
protections
sex couples
NOW
Responses
48 and
responses
64
the
and
the
ECF Nos
arguments
Court GRANTS
the
23 and
made
42
by all
summary judgment
by Plaintiffs
The
same
the
Defendants
no legitimate state
privileges
solely on the
basis
interest
obligations
that
those
and
that
would
justify
responsibilities
couples
are composed
of
of
the
denial
of
marriage to
THEREFORE
Court GRANTS
in each
of
the
the
Motions
two consolidated
The
Court hereby
Due
Process
and
that
and
DECLARES
Equal
as such
it
that
Article 15
Protection
is
void
employees are PERMANENTLY
ECF Nos
23 and
42
filed
by the
plaintiffs
cases
and
clauses
section
of
the
unenforceable
ENJOINED
5A
of
the
Fourteenth
Defendants
from enforcing
Oregon
Constitution
Amendment to
and
the
U S
their officers
violates
the
Constitution
agents
Article 15
section
5A
of
the
041
ORS 106
150
violate
and
Oregon
Constitution
The
Court also DECLARES
Process
and
prohibit
couples
the
Equal
a person
the
couple
officers
any of
the
and
benefits
and
same
state
person
privileges
qualified
or local
sex couples
rights
another
ORS 106
benefits
of
the
and
same
obligations
to
law
otherwise
are unenforceable
qualified
to
only to
the
gender
or would
law
from enforcing
or ordinance
and
that
deny
of
Defendants
same
or to
Due
would
sex
marriage
and
basis
responsibilities
the
they
where
their
or applying
as the
marry in Oregon
obligations
extent
responsibilities
Oregon
ENJOINED
regulation
privileges
and
marry under
or any other
marriage to
010
Clauses
be otherwise
agents
statutes
ORS 106
from marrying
rights
would
that
Protection
to
those
deny
deny
those
that
accompany
couples
marriage in Oregon
The
Court finds that
performed
Oregon
in other
law
The
recognition
basis
and
to
deny
that
County
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
Defendants
of
where
that
Due
or local
law
a same
Defendant
of
971
OR
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
and
regulation
Equal
5000
that
sex marriages legally

other
Protection
or ordinance
sex marriage validly performed
Justice
Suite
same
marriages are in all
Process
from denying
Trial Counsel
Fifth Avenue
currently recognize
those
the
Potter
Portland
Phone
no state
recognition
the
Sheila
1515
State
Court DECLARES
and
ENJOINS
the
jurisdictions
recognition
can
respects
Clauses
amount
in another
valid
require
to
under
that
any valid
jurisdiction
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
5 15 2014 5 11 55
Subject
Re
Thank you
www
http
On May
15
Reading
Sheila
PM
Geiger Rummell
my
makes
this
H
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed
language
heart do unexpected pulses
law works com
2014
at
Proposed language
5 03
PM
Potter
Sheila
for people to toss
potter
sheila
wrote
doj state or us
around and work from
ORDER
The Court having considered the Plaintis
County and Defendants
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
support of their motions and responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
summary judgment motionsled
by
Plaintis
The Court
protections
nds
privileges
that those couples are
NOW
two
GRANTS
obligations
the Motions for
would
justify the denial of the
responsibilities of marriage to
same sex
couples
benets
on the
solely
basis
women
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
void and unenforceable
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
Summary Judgment
ENJOINED
DECLARES
Defendants
ORS
106 010
and
23 and 42
and
marry under Oregon law
their
ORS
by the plaintis
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
or would deny same sex couples the
Due
the
Process
ocers
statutes
privileges
rights
benets
where the couple would be

otherwise qualied
agents
and employees are
as the basis to deny marriage to same sex couples otherwise
benets
that as
only to the extent that they would prohibit a person
ordinance
rights
and
Constitution
from enforcing or applying those
deny those couples any of the
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
responsibilities of marriage
Defendants and their
ocers
to the
ENJOINED
marriage in Oregon
led
of the Oregon Constitution violates the
Amendment
Article 15
from marrying another person of the same gender

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
and Equal Protection Clauses and are unenforceable
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

it
and
composed of two men or two
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
legitimate state interest that
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
no
that there is
PERMANENTLY
or any other state or local law
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
nds
The Court
that the State Defendants
currently recognize
where those marriages are
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
same sex marriages
in all other respects valid
performed
legally
under Oregon law
Clauses require that recognition
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
or ordinance can amount to any valid basis to deny recognition of a same sex
marriage validly performed in another jurisdiction
and ENJOINS the County Defendant from denying
that
recognition
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
5 15 2014 5 14 03
Subject
RE
Right
sure it
can
From
Lake
Sent
Thursday
To
Lake
Law
you
503
503
mailto
since
yesterday
morning
and
m pretty
lake
2014
law
works
com
5 12 PM
H
CONFIDENTIAL
this makes my heart
proposed
do unexpected
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
May 15
sheila
there
Street
Oregon
www
On
been
language
language
pulses
LLC
http
OTLA
my face
proposed
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
T
CONFIDENTIAL
for a while
Geiger Rummell
Reading
Works
SW
be there
May 15
Sheila
Re
James H
1906
this smile off
to
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
Thank
get
s going
PM
Geiger Rummell
works
of
at
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
2014
potter
503
law
works
com
Justice
5 03 PM
doj state
Proposed language
www
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
for people
to
sheila
potter
toss around
and
Plaintiffs
Motions
doj state
work
or us
wrote
from
ORDER
The
Court having
the
County
and
considered
parties in support
motions filed
of
Court finds that
the
benefits
The
ECF Nos
their motions and

there
is
protections
sex couples
NOW
Responses
48 and
responses
64
the
and
the
ECF Nos
arguments
Court GRANTS
the
23 and
made
42
by all
summary judgment
by Plaintiffs
The
same
the
Defendants
no legitimate state
privileges
solely on the
basis
interest
obligations
that
those
and
that
would
justify
responsibilities
couples
are composed
of
of
the
denial
of
marriage to
THEREFORE
Court GRANTS
in each
of
the
the
Motions
two consolidated
The
Court hereby
Due
Process
and
that
and
DECLARES
Equal
as such
it
that
Article 15
Protection
is
void
ECF Nos
23 and
42
filed
by the
plaintiffs
cases
and
clauses
section
of
the
unenforceable
ENJOINED
5A
of
the
Fourteenth
Defendants
from enforcing
Oregon
Constitution
Amendment to
and
the
U S
their officers
violates
the
Constitution
agents
Article 15
section
5A
of
the
041
ORS 106
150
violate
and
Oregon
Constitution
The
Court also DECLARES
Process
and
prohibit
couples
the
officers
statutes
and
and
same
person
qualified
state
benefits
or local
to
law
otherwise
of
the
and
same
obligations
qualified
to
only to
the
gender
or would
law
from enforcing
or ordinance
and
that
deny
of
Defendants
same
or to
Due
would
sex
marriage
and
basis
responsibilities
the
they
where
their
or applying
as the
marry in Oregon
obligations
extent
responsibilities
Oregon
ENJOINED
regulation
privileges
and
marry under
sex couples
rights
another
ORS 106
are unenforceable
privileges
be otherwise
agents
the
010
Clauses
benefits
or any other
marriage to
ORS 106
from marrying
rights
would
that
Protection
a person
the
couple
any of
Equal
to
those
deny
deny
those
that
accompany
couples
marriage in Oregon
The
Court finds that
performed
Oregon
in other
law
The
recognition
basis
and
to
and
deny
ENJOINS
the
Court DECLARES
that
no state
recognition
the
State
Defendants
jurisdictions
County
of
where
that
currently recognize
those
the
Due
or local
law
a same
Defendant
same
Process
and
regulation
Equal
that
other
Protection
or ordinance
from denying
recognition
can
respects
Clauses
amount
in another
valid
require
to
under
that
any valid
jurisdiction
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
of
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
Trial Counsel
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
5 15 2014 5 14 59
Subject
Re
Are you
in
On May
15
Right
H
PM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
town today and able to come by
www
http
Sheila
proposed
language
my party
law works com
2014
can
at
PM
5 14
Potter
get this smile
Sheila
o my face
potter
sheila
been
doj state or us
there since yesterday
wrote
morning and
m prey sure
it
s going
to be there for a while
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Thursday
Potter
Sheila
Subject
Re
mailto lake
May 15
Thank you Reading
com
Geiger Rummell
Lake James
law works
2014 5 12 PM
this
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed
language
makes my heart do unexpected
pulses
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon 97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
skype
OTLA
Street
law works
com
lagojaime
Guardian of
On May 15 2014
Civil
at
Proposed language
Justice
5 03
PM
Potter Sheila
for people to toss
doj state or us wrote
sheila potter
ORDER
Responses
Motions
ECF Nos
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
protections
nds
that there is
privileges
no
obligations
and
would
women
same sex
couples
benets
solely
on the
basis
NOW
The
THEREFORE
Court GRANTS
two
of the
the Motions for
consolidated
The Court hereby
it
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
ENJOINED
DECLARES
also
and
Defendants
ORS
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
106 010
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

such
Summary Judgment
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
nds
The Court
currently recognize
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
same sex marriages
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
that
recognition
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
5 15 2014 5 15 55
Subject
RE
In
town
long
but
unfortunately
Lake
Sent
Thursday
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
Sheila
Re
Works
SW
503
503
that
s been
on the
calendar
for a
sure it
you
503
to
law
works
com
Justice
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
be there
sheila
my face
potter
been
doj state
there
since
or us
wrote
yesterday
morning
and
m pretty
for a while
mailto
lake
2014
law
works
com
5 12 PM
H
CONFIDENTIAL
this makes my heart
proposed
do unexpected
language
pulses
LLC
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
May 15
sheila
www
Perriguey
http
OTLA
2340
May 15
Madison
Portland
F
20334
this smile off
Reading
Works
503
Geiger Rummell
James H
503
get
Sheila
Re
1928
5 14 PM
Perriguey
Potter
20227
com http
Civil
at
503
doj state
Thursday
0 0
works
s going
SW
0 0
2014
Lake
1906
language
by my party
detectors
of
Sent
Lake
come
detectors
tel
From
Thank
to
data
2340
law
can
Subject
able
proposed
data
334
potter
I
and
CONFIDENTIAL
x apple
tel
May 15
Right
com
x apple
1928
Guardian
sheila
works
97205
227
lagojaime
OTLA
law
5 15 PM
Street
Oregon
skype
On
something
LLC
www
Law
to
language
today
http
To
committed
proposed
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
T
lake
2014
Geiger Rummell
James H
1906
On
already
mailto
May 15
Are you in town

Lake
Law
CONFIDENTIAL
time
From
To
PM
Geiger Rummell
works
of
at
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
2014
potter
503
law
works
com
Justice
5 03 PM
doj state
Proposed language
www
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
for people
to
sheila
potter
toss around
and
Plaintiffs
Motions
doj state
work
or us
wrote
from
ORDER
The
Court having
the
County
and
considered
parties in support
motions filed
of
Court finds that
the
benefits
NOW
The
Responses
ECF Nos
their motions and
48 and
responses
64
the
and
the
ECF Nos
arguments
Court GRANTS
the
made
23 and
42
by all
summary judgment
by Plaintiffs
The
same
the
Defendants
there
is
protections
sex couples
no legitimate state
privileges
solely on the
basis
obligations
that
those
interest
and
couples
that
would
justify
responsibilities
are composed
of
of
the
denial
of
marriage to
THEREFORE
Court GRANTS
in each
of
the
the
Motions
two consolidated
The
Court hereby
Due
Process
and
that
and
as such
DECLARES
Equal
it
is
that
Article 15
Protection
void
and
ECF Nos
23 and
42
filed
by the
plaintiffs
cases
clauses
section
of
unenforceable
the
5A
of
Fourteenth
Defendants
the
Oregon
Constitution
Amendment to
and
the
their officers
U S
violates
the
Constitution
agents
and
ENJOINED
from enforcing
Article 15
section
5A
of
the
Oregon
041
ORS 106
150
violate
Constitution
The
Court also DECLARES
Process
and
prohibit
couples
the
Equal
a person
the
couple
officers
any of
the
and
benefits
and
same
state
person
privileges
qualified
or local
sex couples
rights
another
ORS 106
benefits
of
the
and
same
obligations
to
law
otherwise
are unenforceable
qualified
to
only to
the
gender
or would
law
and
of
same
or to
Due
would
sex
marriage
and
basis
responsibilities
the
they
where
their
or applying
as the
marry in Oregon
that
deny
Defendants
from enforcing
or ordinance
obligations
extent
responsibilities
Oregon
ENJOINED
regulation
privileges
and
marry under
or any other
marriage to
010
Clauses
be otherwise
agents
statutes
ORS 106
from marrying
rights
would
that
Protection
to
those
deny
deny
those
that
accompany
couples
marriage in Oregon
The
Court finds that
performed
Oregon
in other
law
The
recognition
basis
and
to
deny
that
County
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
of
where
that
currently recognize
those
the
Due
or local
law
a same
Defendant
same
Process
and
regulation
Equal
that
other
respects
Protection
or ordinance
from denying

Clauses
can
amount
in another
valid
under
require
to
that
any valid
jurisdiction
recognition
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Defendants
Potter
Portland
Phone
no state
recognition
the
Sheila
1515
State
Court DECLARES
and
ENJOINS
the
jurisdictions
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
5 15 2014 5 22 40
Subject
Re
ll
Sheila
H
PM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
proposed
language
think of you
www
http
On May
15
In town
From
Sent
To
law works com
2014
PM
5 15
Potter
but unfortunately already
Lake
Perriguey
Potter
Sheila
Subject
Re
in
mailto lake
May 15
Thursday
Are you
at
commi ed
law works
potter
doj state or us
wrote
to something that s been on the calendar
for a long time
com
H
CONFIDENTIAL
town today and able to come by
sheila
2014 5 15 PM
Geiger Rummell
Lake James
Sheila
proposed
language
my party
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Oregon 97205
Portland
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
OTLA
Street
law works
com
lagojaime
Guardian of
On May 15 2014
Right
can
Civil
at
Justice
5 14
PM
Potter Sheila
get this smile
o my face
sheila potter
been
there since yesterday
to be there for a while
From
Sent
To
Lake
Perriguey
Thursday
Potter
Subject
Sheila
Re
SW
Portland
com
this
Perriguey
Madison
Street
Oregon 97205
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed
language
makes my heart do unexpected
Law Works LLC

1906
law works
2014 5 12 PM
Geiger Rummell
Thank you Reading

Lake James
mailto lake
May 15
pulses
morning and
m prey sure
it
s going
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
skype
com
law works
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On May 15 2014
Civil
Justice
5 03
at
Proposed language
PM
Potter Sheila
for people to toss
sheila potter
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
Summary Judgment
for
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
nds
The Court
protections
privileges
NOW
no
that there is
obligations
and
would
same sex
couples
benets
on the
solely
basis
women
THEREFORE
GRANTS
The Court
two
of the
the Motions for
consolidated
The Court hereby
it
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
Summary Judgment
ENJOINED
DECLARES
Defendants
ORS
106 010
and
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

such
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
The Court
nds
currently recognize
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
recognition
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Fifth
of Justice
Avenue
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
Sheila
same sex marriages
Suite 410
that
Portland
Phone
OR
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
5 16 2014 12 21 58
Subject
Re
Sheila
AM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
proposed
language
Sheila
I
It
will
attended the Case on eight documentary
was
incredible
Judge Vaughn Walker issued

Judge McShane provide
www
http
On May
15
tonight
which was unprecedented
incredi
ble on the ground
coverage
learned something
his
the opinion
two
to counsel an hour or
opinion
in
advance
of the filing
m going
to ask
What do you
to counsel a couple of hours before the public filing
if
that
think
law works com
2014
at
Proposed language
5 03
PM
Potter
Sheila
for people to toss
potter
sheila
wrote
doj state or us
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
protections
nds
privileges
NOW
two
GRANTS
obligations
the Motions for
would
same sex
couples
benets
solely
on the
basis
women
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
Summary Judgment
ENJOINED
DECLARES
Defendants
ORS
106 010
and
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
ORS
and
Amendment
their
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
in each
cases

it
and
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
no
that there is
ocers
agents
section
106 041 1
to the
5A
and
US
Constitution
Due
and
that as
and employees are
ORS
106 150 1
violate
the
Due
Process

rights
benets

otherwise qualied
to
ocers
agents
and employees are
ENJOINED
ordinance
rights
benets
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
nds
The Court
currently recognize
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
same sex marriages
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
that
recognition
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
5 16 2014 8 56 01
Subject
Got your message
You
http
re right
www
Sheila
Thank you for the
law works com
call
H
AM
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
Coie
Misha Isaak
kdiaz
Perkins Coie
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 10 22 33
Subject
RE
intended
for
and are hereby
To comply
communication
purpose
of
that
it
may
any attachments
this
notified
proposed
and purpose
to another
com
justicelawyers
Kevin
Diaz
communication
is
is strictly
we
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
not intended
any transaction
by law
inform you that any
is
protected
any attachments
party
language
contain
and
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
avoiding
recommending
JMiddleton
msn com
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
IRS regulations
with
including
mary h
individual
Notice 2
Lake Perriguey Tom JohnsonPerkins
multco us
Middleton
AM
including
specific
you should delete
recipient
attachments
Mary Williams
Geiger Rummell
This communication
m morf
jenny
Jennifer
aclu or org
CC
Notice
MADKOUR
Jenny
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
Folks
my
Here are Lake s and
proposed edits to order
Lea Ann
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
recognition
nds
benets
nds
on the
two
the Motions for
consolidated
acting
and equal
currently recognize
same sex marriages
women
performed
legally
in
under Oregon law
is
Summary Judgment
ECF Nos
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
in each
cases
DECLARES

it
justify the denial of the full
responsibilities
and immunities of marriage to
basis that those couples are
GRANTS
The Court hereby
such
obligations
would
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
solely
privileges
other jurisdictions
NOW
protections
same gender couples
The Court
no
that there is
that Article 15
clauses
section
5A
of the Fourteenth
Defendants
in active concert or participation
and
Amendment
their
ocers
to the
agents
with any of the Defendants are
US
Constitution
employees and
PERMANENTLY
all
and
Due
that as
other persons
ENJOINED
from
enforcing
Article 15
The Court
also
5A
section
DECLARES
that
ORS
106 010
ORS
benets
rights
couple would be otherwise
employees and
privileges
qualied
ENJOINED
regulation
or ordinance
marry
in
Oregon
obligations
The Court
and
Defendants
Process
their
and equal
where the
ocers
agents
as the basis to deny marriage to samegender couples otherwise
DECLARES
that the
Due
or ordinance
accompany marriage
in
no
law
state or local
privileges
of
rule
of a same
gender marriage
and ENJOINS the County Defendant
jurisdiction
benets
rights
to
Oregon
can amount to any valid basis to deny recognition
in another
qualied
Clauses require recognition
in other jurisdictions and that
are
or any other state orlocal law
statutes
or to deny those couples any of the full and equal recognition
performed
validly
full
responsibilities
and immunities of marriage
to marry under Oregon law
same gender marriages legally performed

regulation
Due
the
violate
or would deny samegender couples the
obligations
responsibilitiesand immunities that
also
106 150 1
other persons acting in active concert or participation with any of the Defendants
all
PERMANENTLY
rule
ORS

recognition
and
106 041 1
from denying
that
recognition
From
Potter
Sent
To
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
mailto sheila
m morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 04 PM
jenny
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Subject
May 15
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
com
Kevin Diaz
Tom
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Lea Ann Easton
Lake Perriguey
justicelawyers
language
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
protections
nds
that there is
privileges
NOW
two
GRANTS
obligations
the Motions for
would
same sex
couples
benets
solely
on the
basis
women
is
Summary Judgment
ECF Nos
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
in each
cases
DECLARES

it
and
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
no
that Article 15
clauses
section
5A
of the Fourteenth
Defendants
and
Amendment
their
ocers
to the
agents
US
Constitution
and employees are
and
Due
that as
PERMANENTLY
The Court
ENJOINED
DECLARES
also
from enforcing
that
ORS
Article 15
106 010
ORS

privileges
obligations
and
5A
and
106 041 1
ORS
106 150 1
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance

rights
benets
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ENJOINED
violate
section
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
nds
The Court
currently recognize
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
same sex marriages
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
that
recognition
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
Coie
Misha Isaak
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
5 16 2014 10 26 14
Subject
RE
have a
call
this
Jennifer
multco us
Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
Kevin
Diaz
aclu or org
Sent
we
m morf
jenny
Perkins Coie
CC
Shall
MADKOUR
Jenny
Mary Williams
We
2 pm
at
msn com
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
afternoon
mary h
AM
can use
proposed
this call in
language
number
Call in number
1 862
902 0250
9166667
PIN
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Potter
Perkins
Cc
2014 10 23 AM
May 16
Sheila
Coie
Jenny
Joyce Anna
MADKOUR
Middleton
Jennifer
Subject
RE Geiger Rummell
Notice
This communication
intended
for
including
specific
and are hereby
To comply
communication
purpose
of
including
recommending
that
it
Kevin Diaz
to another
may
and purpose
communication
contain
Johnson
aclu or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
and
is
we
protected
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
is strictly
any attachments
party
kdiaz
language
not intended
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
avoiding
this
Tom
Lake Perriguey
any attachments
individual
notified
us
com
msn com
proposed
IRS regulations
with
multco
justicelawyers
williams
Notice 2
m morf
CONFIDENTIAL
you should delete
recipient
attachments
jenny
JMiddleton
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
Folks
Here are Lake s and
my
Lea Ann
ORDER
Responses
Motions
ECF Nos
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
recognition
nds
that there is
benets
same gender couples
The Court
nds
no
protections
solely
on the
privileges
obligations
would
and equal
responsibilities
currently recognize
same sex marriages
legally
women
performed
in
other jurisdictions
NOW
THEREFORE
GRANTS
The Court
two
of the
DECLARES
that Article 15
is
enforcing
Article 15
The Court
also
5A
section
DECLARES
section
Defendants
and
ORS
106 010
privileges
qualied
ENJOINED
regulation
or ordinance
marry
in
Oregon
obligations
The Court
ORS
validly
US
to the
and
Constitution
employees and
agents
and
other persons
all
PERMANENTLY
that as
ENJOINED
ORS
106 150 1
Due
the
violate
full
responsibilities
and
Defendants
Process
their
and equal
where the
ocers
agents
that the
Due
or ordinance
performed
accompany marriage
in
no
state or local
law
from denying
of
rule
that
recognition
From
Sent
To
Potter
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
Joyce Anna
Subject
mailto sheila
May 15
2014 5 04 PM
jenny
Jennifer
morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
Lea Ann Easton
com
Kevin Diaz
Tom
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Perriguey
justicelawyers
language
ORDER
Responses
Motions
ECF Nos
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
Plaintis
The Court
nds
that there is
no
would
to
privileges
of a same
gender marriage
jurisdiction
benets
rights
Oregon
in another
qualied
are
statutes
DECLARES
from

regulation
ocers
106 041 1
obligations
also
Due
all
PERMANENTLY
rule
in each
that
benets
employees and
by the plaintis
Amendment
their

rights
led
23 and 42
recognition
5A
of the Fourteenth
clauses
acting
ECF Nos
cases

it
Summary Judgment
the Motions for
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
under Oregon law
benets
the
in
by
protections
privileges
NOW
obligations
same sex
couples
on the
solely
basis
women
THEREFORE
GRANTS
The Court
two
of the
the Motions for
consolidated
The Court hereby
it
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
ENJOINED
DECLARES
also
Summary Judgment
and
Defendants
ORS
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
106 010
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

such
and
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
nds
The Court
currently recognize
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
same sex marriages
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
that
recognition
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Johnson
To
Thomas
Lea Ann Easton

Isaak
Misha
kdiaz
Perkins
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 10 29 19
Subject
RE
work
me
for
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Sheila
Coie
MADKOUR
Jenny
Jennifer
Middleton
mary h
williams
jenny
m morf
JMiddleton
Lake
multco us
com
justicelawyers
Perriguey
Diaz
Kevin
aclu or org
CC
That doesn
Perkins Coie
Jr
Potter
Mary Williams
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
and
but Misha
msn com
AM
are calling you
proposed
language
now
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
PHONE
97209 4128
503 727 2176
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
Cc
Potter
Jenny
Coie
Perkins
Joyce Anna
LEaston
mailto
MADKOUR
Jennifer
have a
call
this
m morf
jenny
Middleton
RE Geiger Rummell
we
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 10 26 AM
May 16
Sheila
Misha
Subject
Shall
com
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Isaak
perkinscoie
at
us
Lake
Perriguey
justicelawyers
Johnson
com
Kevin
Thomas R
Diaz
kdiaz
Jr
aclu
Perkins
or
Coie
org
msn com
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
afternoon
multco
JMiddleton
proposed
We
2 pm
language
can use
this call in
number
Call in number
1 862
902 0250
9166667
PIN
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Potter
Perkins
Cc
2014 10 23 AM
May 16
Sheila
Coie
Jenny
Joyce Anna
MADKOUR
Middleton
Jennifer
Subject
RE Geiger Rummell
Notice
This communication
intended
for
and are hereby
Notice 2
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
with
including
avoiding
proposed
this
that
it
Johnson
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
language
may
and purpose
communication
is strictly
any attachments
we
and
contain
is
any transaction
protected
by law
If
you are not the

distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
Folks
my
kdiaz
IRS regulations
party
Tom
Perriguey
Kevin Diaz
not intended
to another
Here are Lake s and
Lake
com
any attachments
individual
notified
us
msn com
williams
including
specific
multco
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIAL
you should delete
recipient
attachments
m morf
jenny
JMiddleton
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
herein
in this
for the
or
Lea Ann
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
ECF Nos
and the arguments
GRANTS
made by
23and 42
the
all parties
in
the
by
Plaintis
nds
The Court
benets
recognition
nds
solely
on the
obligations
the Motions for
consolidated
currently recognize
women
same sex marriages
performed
legally
in
under Oregon law

is
it
Summary Judgment
that Article 15
clauses
enforcing
Article 15
The Court
also
5A
section
DECLARES
section
Defendants
and
that
benets
employees and
ORS
106 010
privileges
qualied
ENJOINED
regulation
or ordinance
in
Oregon
obligations
The Court
ORS
obligations
validly
DECLARES
or ordinance
employees and
agents
and
Constitution
PERMANENTLY
that as
other persons
all
ENJOINED
106 041 1
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
full
responsibilities
Defendants
that the
Due
jurisdiction
mailto sheila
potter
accompany marriage
in
and
their
ocers
and equal
where the
agents
are
rights
benets
qualied
Oregon
no
state or local
law
of
rule
of a same
gender marriage
from denying
to
privileges
doj state or us
Process
statutes
in another
from
recognition
Sheila
US
to the
performed
Potter
ocers

regulation
Amendment
their
Due
also
in each
all
PERMANENTLY
marry
by the plaintis

rights
led
23 and 42
recognition
5A
of the Fourteenth
acting
ECF Nos
cases
DECLARES
The Court hereby
From
and equal
responsibilities
GRANTS
two
of the
rule
would
THEREFORE
The Court
such
privileges
other jurisdictions
NOW
protections
same gender couples
The Court
no
that there is
that
Sent
To
Perkins
Cc
MADKOUR
Coie
jenny
morf
Middleton
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Subject
2014 5 04 PM
May 15
Thursday
Jenny
multco
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
us
JMiddleton
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
com
Kevin Diaz
Johnson
kdiaz
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Tom
Lea Ann Easton
Perriguey
justicelawyers
language
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
Summary Judgment
for
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
nds
The Court
protections
privileges
NOW
GRANTS
two
obligations
the Motions for
would
same sex
couples
benets
on the
solely
basis
women
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
Summary Judgment
ENJOINED
DECLARES
Defendants
ORS
obligations
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
106 010
and
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

it
and
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
no
that there is
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
PERMANENTLY
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
The Court
nds
currently recognize
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
recognition
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
Sheila
same sex marriages
of Justice
that
SW
1515
Portland
Phone
Avenue
Fifth
OR
Suite 410
97201
FAX 971 673 5000
971 673 1880
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
MADKOUR
From
Jenny
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sheila
Coie
Misha Isaak
kdiaz
5 16 2014 10 45 39
Re
Friday
Shall
we
Joyce Anna
aclu or org
Subject
On
jenny
Perkins Coie
Sent
can make
MADKOUR
Jenny
m morf
Jennifer
multco us
Middleton
JMiddleton
williams
com
justicelawyers
Kevin
Diaz
msn com
AM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
proposed
language
work
that
May
16 2014
have a
call this
Lea Ann Easton
afternoon
at
LEaston
pm
We
dorsayindianlaw
can use
this call in
com
number
wrote
Call in number
1 862
902 0250
9166667
PIN
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Potter
Coie
Perkins
Cc
Joyce Anna
Subject
2014 10 23 AM
May 16
Sheila
Jenny
MADKOUR
Middleton
Jennifer
RE Geiger Rummell
disclosure
copying
multco
justicelawyers
proposed
is
Lake
com
Perriguey
Kevin Diaz
Tom
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
language
may
any attachments
and
us
msn com
williams
including
and purpose
m morf
CONFIDENTIAL
This communication
Notice
jenny
JMiddleton
protected
by law
contain privileged
If
you are not the
or con
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
avoiding
Folks
including
penalties
any transaction
with
IRS
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
or matter addressed
Revenue
herein
is
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
Here are Lake
and
my
proposed
edits
to order
Lea Ann
ORDER

Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
recognition
nds
benets
nds
on the
two
the Motions for
consolidated
acting
currently recognize
same sex marriages
women
performed
legally
in
under Oregon law
is
Summary Judgment
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
The Court
Article 15
also
section
DECLARES
5A
that
section
5A
of the Fourteenth
Defendants
enforcing
ECF Nos
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
in each
cases

it
and equal
responsibilities
GRANTS
The Court hereby
such
obligations
would
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
solely
privileges
other jurisdictions
NOW
protections
same gender couples
The Court
no
that there is
and
Amendment
their
ocers
to the
agents
US
Constitution
employees and
and
that as
other persons
all
PERMANENTLY
Due
ENJOINED
from
ORS
106 010
ORS

106 041 1
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
the
Due
Process

full
and equal
recognition
benets
rights
privileges
employees and
qualied
ENJOINED
regulation
or ordinance
marry
in
Oregon
obligations
The Court
validly
their
where the
ocers
agents
DECLARES
that the
Due
or ordinance
performed
accompany marriage
in
no
state or local
law
from denying
of
rule
that
recognition
From
Sent
To
Potter
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
mailto sheila
morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 04 PM
jenny
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Subject
May 15
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
Tom
Lea Ann Easton
com
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Perriguey
justicelawyers
language
ORDER

Responses
Motions
ECF Nos
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
protections
nds
that there is
privileges
no
obligations
and
would
women
same sex
couples
benets
solely
to
privileges
of a same
gender marriage
jurisdiction
benets
rights
Oregon
in another
qualied
are
statutes

regulation
and
Defendants
also
responsibilities
all
PERMANENTLY
rule
obligations
on the
basis
NOW
THEREFORE
The Court
GRANTS
two
of the
the Motions for
consolidated
The Court hereby
is
it
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
ENJOINED
DECLARES
of the Fourteenth
Defendants
from enforcing
that
ORS
106 010
and
led
23 and 42
by the plaintis
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
Due
the
violate
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

such
Summary Judgment
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
or
regulation
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
The Court
nds
other jurisdictions
currently recognize
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
same sex marriages
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
that
recognition
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief Trial Counsel
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
and
or the attachments
may
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
5 16 2014 10 46 36
Subject
Proposed
Sheila
This communication
Notice
intended
recipient
for
Jenny
individual
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
Sheila
with
including
avoiding
jenny
m morf
any attachments
including
this
notified
Notice 2
MADKOUR
that
communication
and
we
IRS regulations
any attachments
party
contain
is
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
not intended
any transaction
by law
inform you that any
is
protected
is strictly
it
may
and purpose
to another
multco us
AM
Order
specific
and are hereby
attachments
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
Jenny
Tom and
Misha called
me
with
some proposed changes
proposed order back to them so that
we
have something back out to the Defendants
Lea Ann
to
can argue about

shortly
my
edits
plaintiffs
am
reviewing
edits without
taking
them
now and
Defendants
will
be sending a
time
We
will
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Jenny
Sent
5 16 2014 10 48 06
Subject
Re
Sheila
MADKOUR
Proposed
jenny
m morf
multco us
AM
Order
Thanks
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Oregon
Department
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
On May 16
2014
at 10 46 AM
Lea Ann Easton
Notice
This
information
are not the
materials
communication
intended
intended
and
distribution
including
wrote
may contain
privileged
or confidential
for a specific
If
recipient
any attachments
of
any attachments
com
and
are hereby
this communication
or the
notified
taking
of
that
any disclosure
any action
based
copying
on it
is
you
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice 2
contained
cannot
ii

federal tax advice
and
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
of
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
under
party
the
Internal
any transaction
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
addressed
herein
Sheila
Jenny
Tom
Misha called
will
and
be sending
without
Lea
Ann
taking
me with some
a proposed
Defendants
proposed
order
back
time
We
changes
to
my edits
to
them
so that
we
will
have
something
can
back
am reviewing
argue
out
to
about
the
them
plaintiffs
Defendants
now
and
edits
shortly
From
Potter
To
Misha Isaak
Sent
5 16 2014 11 04 01
Subject
FW
Just listened
post
I
it
m not
at
calling
Lea
Sent
Friday
Ann
Potter
Subject
you back
mailto
2014
Misha called
Lea
be sending
Ann
Johnson
Perkins Coie
Order
and
am laughing
like
It
s 2086
you re conferring
ve
got
with Lake
your numbers
and
Lea
Ann
on a
so that
s why
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
10 47 AM
Jenny MADKOUR
jenny
m morf multco us
Proposed Order
Jenny
without
Tom
yet
May 16
Sheila
Coie
AM
looks
Easton
Tom
will
Proposed
Anyway
Sheila
and
Perkins
your voicemail
my desk
From
To
to
Sheila
taking
me with some
a proposed
Defendants
proposed
order
back
time
We
changes
to
my edits
to
them
so that
we
will
have
something
can
back
am reviewing
argue
out
to
about
the
them
plaintiffs
Defendants
now
and
edits
shortly
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
5 16 2014 11 14 25
Subject
RE
It
certainly
We
would be nice
if
Thomas
Perkins
Jr
Coie
AM
Order
knew my own phone number
Tom and
you
just tried calling
Proposed
Coie
Johnson
have a
Ugh
we need
lunch that
client
we
leave for a few minutes so
to
in
will
try
to
connect
with
you after lunch
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
From
Sent
To
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
Potter
Friday
Isaak
Sheila
Misha
FW
Subject
From
Sent
To
mailto sheila
Perkins
Sheila
Johnson
to your voicemail and
Lea Ann Easton
Potter
Coie
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
am
laughing
s 2086
It
looks like you re conferring with Lake and Lea
Friday
Subject
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 04 AM
Proposed Order
Just listened
Anyway
May 16
May 16
Sheila
mailto
LEaston
ve got your numbers
Ann
so that s
why
a post
on
m not
calling
at
it
my desk
you back
yet
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 10 47 AM
Jenny
MADKOUR
jenny
m morf
multco
us
some proposed changes
to
Proposed Order
Jenny
Tom and
Misha called
me
with
proposed order back to them so that
we
can argue about
have something back out to the Defendants
my
edits
am
reviewing
edits without
plaintiffs
taking
them
now and
Defendants
will
be sending a
time
We
will
shortly
Lea Ann
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
the contents conf
that
you have received
idential
this
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
any transaction
or
with
Treasury
Coie LLP to be used

matter addressed
herein
or
Department
Revenue Code
any attachments
and IRS
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
NOTICE
advise
This communication
the sender
contents
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
To
H
Perkins Coie
Sent
5 16 2014 11 23 53
Subject
RE
Hee
Listen
Sorry
meeting
the
way
missed
at
call
but
no matter
Isaak
Sent
Friday
To
fewer
Potter
Subject
it
Sheila
you when
lunch
if
they
ve
you call
got
don
to
have
your contact
run an errand
my cell
at
503
269
and
1737
information
then
I
ll
have
be able
a
to
take
m doing
Coie
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
11 14 AM
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
my own
Perkins
Coie
Proposed Order
It
certainly
We
just tried calling
minutes
bother
a good
else I
2014
can
Have
Perkins
May 16
Perkins Coie
Jr
Order
s by phone
what
Misha
RE
people
your call
1 30
From
Proposed
Thomas
Johnson
AM
would
so we
be nice
will
if
you
try
Tom
to
knew
and
connect
have
phone
number
Ugh
lunch
that
a client
with you after
we
need
to
leave
for in a few
lunch
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
To
Isaak
Subject
Sheila
it
m not
at
to
calling
Lea
Sent
Friday
Ann
Potter
Subject
you back
mailto
2014
Sheila
be sending
taking
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
and
am laughing
like
It
s 2086
you re conferring
ve
got
with Lake
your numbers
and
Lea
Ann
on a
so that
s why
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
10 47 AM
Jenny MADKOUR
jenny
m morf multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
me with some
a proposed
proposed
back
time
changes
to
my edits
to
them
so that
We
will
have
something
information
that
is
Defendants
order
we
can
am reviewing
argue
back
out
about
to
the
them
now
plaintiffs
Defendants
and
edits
shortly
Ann
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
IRS
or us
Proposed Order
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
doj state
yet
May 16
Misha called
Lea
potter
Johnson
looks
Easton
Jenny
without
Coie
Anyway
Tom
will
sheila
11 04 AM
your voicemail
Sheila
and
mailto
2014
Perkins
my desk
From
To
LLP
Proposed Order
Just listened
post
May 16
Misha
FW
Coie
2086
CIRCULAR
Perkins
that
you have
keep
the
law
received
contents
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
Coie
avoiding
promoting
If
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
regulations
contained
applicable
LLP
to
penalties
be used
that
marketing
and
ensure
unless
compliance
including
cannot
any attachments
be used
or recommending
to
expressly indicated
by the
taxpayer
another
party
otherwise
is
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
and
any transaction
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
addressed
ii
herein
or any attachments
NOTICE
This
have
communication
received
message
and
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
privileged
please advise
without
the
copying
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
Coie
Misha Isaak
kdiaz
MADKOUR
Jenny
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 12 50 21
Subject
RE
Attachments
Order edits Final Plaintiffs docx
intended
for
specific
and are hereby
To comply
communication
purpose
of
including
recommending
Misha and
may
that
and purpose
to another
this
Kevin
Diaz
we
any attachments
party
language
contain
and
is
not intended
any transaction
out to the group for discussion
distribution of
to
US
you are not the
If
this
communication
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and
by law
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
is strictly
it
worked on additional edits to the proposed order
are sending
com
justicelawyers
avoiding
proposed
communication
IRS regulations
with
JMiddleton
msn com
williams
any attachments
this
notified
mary h
CONFIDENTIAL
individual
Notice 2
multco us
Middleton
PM
including
you should delete
recipient
attachments
Mary Williams
Geiger Rummell
This communication
Jennifer
aclu or org
CC
Notice
m morf
jenny
Perkins Coie
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
morning on behalf our respective
this
in this
of
We
clients
considersation
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
mailto sheila
m morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 04 PM
jenny
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Subject
May 15
Lake Perriguey
justicelawyers
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
Kevin Diaz
Tom
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Lea Ann Easton
com
language
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
protections
nds
that there is
privileges
NOW
no
obligations
and
would
same sex
couples
benets
solely
on the
basis
women
THEREFORE
The Court
GRANTS
the Motions for
Summary Judgment
ECF Nos
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
in each
two
of the
consolidated
The Court hereby
cases
DECLARES

such
it
is
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
ENJOINED
DECLARES
also
and
Defendants
ORS
106 010
ORS

obligations
and
their
ocers
to the
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15
privileges
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
nds
The Court
currently recognize
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
same sex marriages
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
that
recognition
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
ORDER
The Court
42
all
the County and Defendants

parties in
motions
support
by
filed
The Court
there
and the arguments made by
48 and 64
GRANTS
is
no legitimate
attendant rights
state interest
would
that
protections
benefits
justify
privileges
and immunities of marriage to same gender couples
two men
couples are composed of
The Court
ECF Nos
Responses
of their motions and responses the Court
the
finds that
jurisdictions
summary judgment
or
the denial of the
full
obligations
solely
on the
basis
those
that
two women
Oregon Administrative Rule 105 010 0018 currently requires
departments to recognize same gender marriages legally performed
executive
23 and
Plaintiffs
finds that
responsibilities
ECF Nos
Motions for Summary Judgment
having considered the Plaintiffs
in
all
state
other
in
other respects valid under Oregon law
NOW THEREFORE
GRANTS
The Court
plaintiffs
in
The Court
the
Due
the Motions for
ECF Nos
Summary Judgment
23 and 42
by the
filed
each of the consolidated cases
DECLARES
hereby
that
Article 15
Constitution
and
that
and employees are
as such
it
is
clauses
5A
section
Amendment
of the Fourteenth
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
to the
Defendants and their officers
5A
from enforcing Article 15 section
agents
of the
Oregon Constitution
The Court
the
Due
also
DECLARES
that
ORS
106 010
ORS
106 041 1
and
Clauses and are unenforceable
ORS
106 150 1
violate
only to the extent that they
would prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same gender or would deny same
gender couples the
otherwise
qualified
employees are
other
state
to marry and
right
obligations
privileges
or local law
rule
rights
benefits
accompany marriage
The Court
DECLARES
marriages of same
marriages are in
regulation
couple
in
all
regulation
Defendants and their of ficers
to deny married same
and immunities
responsibilities
that
the
Due
legally
performed
in
other
can amount to any
marriage validly performed

not already recognizing
statutes
or any
gender couples
that
Oregon
gender couples
or ordinance
and
agents
as the basis to deny marriage to same
or ordinance
obligations
privileges
benefits
to marry in Oregon
qualified
attendant rights
gender couples otherwise

any of the
full
responsibilities
agents
in
valid
basis
and
that
no
and
of
where those
state
to deny recognition
or local law
of a same
rule
gender
PERMANENTLY ENJOINS
and employees from denying
such marriages
jurisdictions
that
recognition
to the extent
This Order shall be effective immediately upon filing
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton

Perkins
Coie
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 1 17 47
Subject
RE
you send
Ann
From
Lea
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Perkins
Joyce
Subject
Notice
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
Jenny MADKOUR
Misha Isaak
jenny
Perkins
com
you ve
changed
Thanks
com
Jennifer
Diaz
kdiaz
including
are not
intended
recipient
any attachments
and
are hereby
this communication
or the
Tom
Johnson
or org
language
any attachments
and
you should delete
Perriguey
com
proposed
individual
Lake
Middleton
aclu
mary h williams msn
for a specific
of
language
m morf multco us
CONFIDENTIAL
communication
and
see what
Coie
Kevin
Williams
intended
distribution
com
justicelawyers
12 50 PM
information
materials
can
proposed
2014
Geiger Rummell
the
CONFIDENTIAL
mailto
Mary
JMiddleton
msn com
williams
May 16
justicelawyers
This
mary h
Easton
Anna
Middleton
PM
we
Lake Perriguey Tom Johnson
multco us
Jennifer
so that
Sheila
RE
Coie
copy
Coie
JMiddleton
Cc
Mary Williams
Geiger Rummell
a redlined
m morf
jenny
Perkins
aclu or org
CC
Can
MADKOUR
Jenny
Misha Isaak
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
and
Code
or matter
or
addressed
herein
Misha and
respective
Lea
worked
edits to
We
are sending
mailto
the
this out
proposed
to
the
order
group
this morning
for discussion
on behalf
and
of
our
considersation
Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
Sheila
May 15
To
Jenny MADKOUR
Ann
Easton
Tom
JMiddleton
Joyce
Subject
2014
jenny
Johnson
kdiaz
Anna
aclu
Mary
Perkins
potter
doj state
or us
Coie
jenny
Misha Isaak
com mailto
JMiddleton
m morf multco us
Perkins
Coie
justicelawyers
Lake
Jennifer
com
Perriguey
Lea
Middleton
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Williams
Geiger Rummell
mary h williams msn
CONFIDENTIAL
for people
Proposed language
sheila
5 04 PM
justicelawyers
or org mailto
Cc
on additional
clients
to
proposed
com mailto
mary h williams msn
com
language
toss around
and
work
Plaintiffs
Motions
from
ORDER
The
Court having
the
County
and
considered
Defendants
parties in support
motions filed
of
Court finds that
the
benefits
sex couples
NOW
THEREFORE
Court GRANTS
of
the
their motions and
there
protections
same
in each
ECF Nos
48 and
responses
64
the
and
the
ECF Nos
arguments
Court GRANTS
the
made
23 and
42
by all
summary judgment
by Plaintiffs
The
The
the
Responses
is
no legitimate state
privileges
solely on the
the
Motions
basis
obligations
that
those
cases
and
couples
two consolidated
interest
that
would
justify
responsibilities
are composed
ECF Nos
23 and
42
of
of
the
denial
of
marriage to
filed
by the
plaintiffs
The
Court hereby
Due
Process
and
that
and
DECLARES
Equal
as such
it
that
Article 15
Protection
is
void
and
clauses
section
of
the
unenforceable
ENJOINED
5A
of
the
Fourteenth
Defendants
from enforcing
Oregon
Constitution
Amendment to
and
the
U S
their officers
violates
the
Constitution
agents
Article 15
section
5A
of
the
041
ORS 106
150
violate
and
Oregon
Constitution
The
Court also DECLARES
Process
and
prohibit
couples
the
Equal
a person
the
couple
officers
any of
the
and
benefits
and
same
state
person
privileges
qualified
or local
sex couples
rights
another
ORS 106
benefits
of
the
and
same
obligations
to
law
otherwise
are unenforceable
qualified
to
only to
the
gender
or would
law
and
of
same
or to
Due
would
sex
marriage
and
basis
responsibilities
the
they
where
their
or applying
as the
marry in Oregon
that
deny
Defendants
from enforcing
or ordinance
obligations
extent
responsibilities
Oregon
ENJOINED
regulation
privileges
and
marry under
or any other
marriage to
010
Clauses
be otherwise
agents
statutes
ORS 106
from marrying
rights
would
that
Protection
to
those
deny
deny
those
that
accompany
couples
marriage in Oregon
The
Court finds that
performed
Oregon
in other
law
The
recognition
basis
and
to
deny
that
County
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
of
where
that
currently recognize
those
the
Due
or local
law
a same
Defendant
same
Process
and
regulation
Equal
that
other
respects
Protection
or ordinance
from denying

Clauses
can
amount
in another
valid
under
require
to
that
any valid
jurisdiction
recognition
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Defendants
Potter
Portland
Phone
no state
recognition
the
Sheila
1515
State
Court DECLARES
and
ENJOINS
the
jurisdictions
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
Coie
Misha Isaak
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
5 16 2014 1 20 44
Subject
RE
Attachments
Order edits Final docx
thought
Mary Williams
multco us
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
justicelawyers
Kevin
Diaz
had
mary h
msn com
williams
PM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
one
that s the
Jennifer
aclu or org
Sent
m morf
jenny
Perkins Coie
CC
Sorry
MADKOUR
Jenny
proposed
language
sent out
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Coie
From
Potter
Perkins
Cc
Middleton
Sheila
LEaston
mailto
Jenny
MADKOUR
Middleton
RE Geiger Rummell
Notice
This communication
for
purpose
To comply
of
Misha and
are sending
with
including
to another
multco
proposed
this
that
it
Lake
com
Coie
Perkins
Misha Isaak
org
Thanks
Johnson
kdiaz
may
and purpose
communication
and
contain
is
aclu
or
Coie
Perkins
Misha Isaak
org
is strictly
we
any attachments
to
distribution of
US
you are not the
this
communication
this
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and
If
prohibited
not intended
any transaction
by law
inform you that any
is
protected
IRS regulations
party
Tom
Perriguey
Kevin Diaz
language
any attachments
individual
notified
us

this
aclu or
com
avoiding
recommending
Johnson
kdiaz
msn com
williams
including
specific
and are hereby
communication
Tom
Perriguey
Kevin Diaz
language
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIAL
Notice 2
Lake
can see what you ve changed
m morf
jenny
JMiddleton
you should delete
recipient
attachments
proposed
we
us
com
msn com
williams
dorsayindianlaw
Subject
intended
multco
2014 12 50 PM
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
morf
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIAL
a redlined copy so that
May 16
Coie
jenny
JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
doj state or us
potter
MADKOUR
Jenny
RE Geiger Rummell
Can you send
Sent
mailto sheila
2014 1 18 PM
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Subject
To
May 16
Lea Ann Easton
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
in this
for the
or
herein

of
clients
We
considersation
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
Joyce Anna
Subject
mailto sheila
May 15
jenny
Jennifer
potter
doj state or us
2014 5 04 PM
morf
Middleton
multco
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
us
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
Perriguey
justicelawyers
msn com
proposed
Lea Ann Easton
com
language
Kevin Diaz
Tom
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
or
Perkins
org
Coie
Misha Isaak
Proposed language
for people to toss
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
Summary Judgment
for
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
nds
The Court
protections
privileges
NOW
no
that there is
obligations
and
would
same sex
couples
benets
on the
solely
basis
women
THEREFORE
GRANTS
The Court
two
of the
the Motions for
consolidated
The Court hereby
it
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
Summary Judgment
ENJOINED
DECLARES
Defendants
ORS
106 010
and
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

such
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
The Court
nds
currently recognize
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
recognition
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
Sheila
same sex marriages
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
that
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
ORDER
The Court
42
all

parties in
motions
support
by
filed
The Court
there
48 and 64
GRANTS
is
no legitimate
attendant rights
state interest
would
that
protections
benefits
justify
summary judgment
the
two men
finds that
the denial of the
solely
on the
jurisdictions
basis
those
that
two women
or
Oregon Administrative Rule 105 010 0018 currently requires
departments to recognize same gender marriages legally performed
executive
full
obligations
privileges
The Court
ECF Nos
Responses
23 and
Plaintiffs
finds that
responsibilities
ECF Nos
in
all
in
state
other
NOW THEREFORE
GRANTS
The Court
plaintiffs
Due
Summary Judgment
ECF Nos
23 and 42
by the
filed
n each of the consolidated cases
The Court
the
the Motions for
DECLARES
hereby
that
Article 15
Constitution
and
that
and employees are
as such
it
is
clauses
5A
section
and unenforceable
void
Amendment
of the Fourteenth
to the
agents
5A
of the
Oregon Constitution
The Court
the
Due
also
DECLARES
that
ORS
ORS
106 010
106 041 1
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
gender couples the
otherwise
qualified
employees are
other
state
to marry and
right
obligations
privileges
or local law
rule
rights
benefits
accompany marriage
The Court
DECLARES
marriages of same
marriages are in
regulation
couple
in
all
ENJOINED
regulation
privileges
or to deny
married same
or any
gender couples
and immunities
responsibilities
that
the
Due
legally
performed
in
other
can amount to any
marriage validly performed

not already recognizing
statutes
that
Oregon
gender couples
or ordinance
and
agents
or ordinance
obligations
benefits
to marry in Oregon
qualified
attendant rights
PERMANENTLY
gender couples otherwise

any of the
full
responsibilities
agents
in
valid
basis
such marriages
and
that
no
and
of
where those
state
to deny recognition
and employees
jurisdictions
or local law
of a same
rule
gender
PERMANENTLY ENJOINS
from denying
that
recognition
to the extent
This Order shall be effective immediately upon filing
From
Jennifer
To
kdiaz
jenny
Middleton
aclu or org
m morf
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 1 20 50
Subject
RE
believe
is
it
incorrect
deny marriage licenses
to
whatever
Jennifer
in
a spectrum
currently
of
Schaller
PM
CONFIDENTIAL
same gender
genders
rather
proposed
language
Two
same sex
than
be the same sex but have
people can
confuses the issue to speak in terms of same gender when the

the
is
or lack
sex
on
recognized
thereof
their birth certificate
the applicants
that
might identif y with
the State uses
documents
suggest
that
criteria
or identification
changing
not
it
throughout
PC
1050
Ste
Street
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
If
it
msn com
OR 97401
Eugene
541
think
com lake
law works com
com TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
LEaston
misaak
williams
Geiger Rummell
use the term
to
gender identities
different
mary h
Sheila
Potter
multco us
com
NOTICE
This message
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
intended
hereby
for
specific
notified
that
action based on
Notice 2
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
Misha and
sending
this
com
and
notify
and purpose
including
may
and
communication
is
protected
contain
by law
If
distribution of this
information
you are not the intended
and or shred the materials and any

communication
and are
at tachments
or the taking of any
prohibited
any attachments
is
that
not intended
party
any transaction
and
US
this
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed

any
to
to another
protected
the sender
05 16 14 12 50 PM
IRS regulations we inform you
with
avoiding
it
is strictly
it
this
communications
confidential
any attachments
including
individual
you should delete
recipient
contain
please delete
dorsayindianlaw
This communication
Notice
may
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein

of
clients
We
are
considersation
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
Joyce Anna
Subject
doj state or us
May 15 2014 5 04 PM
jenny
Jennifer
m morf
Middleton
multco
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
Lake Perriguey
justicelawyers
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
for people
us
JMiddleton
Lea Ann Easton
com
Kevin Diaz
Tom
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu or
Coie
Perkins
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
language
to toss around and
work from
ORDER
Responses
Motions
ECF Nos
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
ECF Nos
23and 42
all
the
parties in support
of their motions and responses
nds
The Court
protections
NOW
no
that there is
privileges
GRANTS
summary judgment motions led
the
and
obligations
would
byPlaintis
same sex
couples
benets
on the
solely
basis
women
THEREFORE
GRANTS
The Court
two
of the
the Motions for
consolidated
The Court hereby
it
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
ENJOINED
DECLARES
also
Summary Judgment
and
Defendants
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
ORS
ORS
106 010
and
their
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
that as
Due
violate the
ocers
Process
agents and employees are

privileges
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ordinance
statutes
benets
and
rights
S Constitution
ENJOINED
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Defendants
Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

such
the Court
PERMANENTLY
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
nds
The Court
jurisdictions
that the
Due
currently recognize
same sex marriages
performed
in another
Trial
SW
Phone
no
DECLARES
law
state or local
of a same
sex marriage validly
from denying
that recognition
Counsel
Oregon Department
Portland
that
in other
Potter
Deputy Chief
1515
and
or ordinance can amount to any valid basis to deny recognition
Sheila
performed
under Oregon law The Court
regulation
jurisdiction
legally
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
privileged
me
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
ise that
idential
you have received
this
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Jennifer
Middleton
m morf
jenny
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 1 28 01
Subject
RE
agree
and
And
having
gender
that
kdiaz
multco us
mary h
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
com TRJohnson
perkinscoie
law workscom
lake
com
perkinscoie
msn com
williams
PM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
identity isn t
terminology
aclu or org
misaak
something
suddenly
appear
proposed
that
we
in the
ve
language
gotten
into
written order
in the
is
briefing
probably
not
at
the
all
way
to
go
From
Jennifer
Sent
Friday
To
kdiaz
jenny
Cc
aclu
Joyce
believe
be the
it
same
Potter
is
is
975
Street
OR
683
to
Schaller
Ste
the
dorsayindianlaw
com
TRJohnson
com
lake
perkinscoie
law
works
com
com
proposed
term
gender
criteria
same
language
gender
identities
that
the
rather
I
think
State
than
it
uses to
on their birth certificate
genders
or lack
thereof
that
same
sex
Two
confuses
the
issue
deny
to
can
speak
marriage licenses
or identification
the
people
applicants
documents
might identify
throughout
PC
1050
97401
2506
NOTICE
attorney
privilege
client
the
com mailto
This
CONFIDENTIALITY
Lea
use the
of
it
notify
com
com
recognized
changing
LEaston
CONFIDENTIAL
when
sex
justicelawyers
Middleton
Johnson
Eugene
gender
perkinscoie
different
in a spectrum
Johnson
Oak
have
the
suggest
Jennifer
541
incorrect
same
whatever
with
Sheila
misaak
mary h williams msn
sex but
currently
JMiddleton
1 21 PM
Geiger Rummell
in terms of
not
or org
Anna
RE
mailto
2014
m morf multco us
Subject
I
Middleton
May 16
message
If
may contain
you have
received
confidential
this message
com
communications
in error
protected
please delete
by the
it
and
sender
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
05 16 14
12 50 PM
Notice
This
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
under
party
not
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
Misha and
respective
Lea
worked
clients
on additional
edits to
We
are sending
mailto
the
this out
to
proposed
the
order
group
this morning
for discussion
on behalf
and
of
our
considersation
Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
Sheila
To
Jenny MADKOUR
Ann
Easton
JMiddleton
Tom
May 15
jenny
Johnson
2014
sheila
potter
doj state

Perkins
justicelawyers
or us
5 04 PM
Coie
com mailto
jenny
Misha Isaak
JMiddleton
m morf multco us
Perkins
Coie
justicelawyers
com
Lake
Jennifer
Kevin
Perriguey
Lea
Middleton
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org mailto
Cc
Joyce
Subject
kdiaz
Anna
aclu
Mary
or org
Williams
Geiger Rummell
for people
Proposed language
mary h williams msn
CONFIDENTIAL
to
proposed
com mailto
mary h williams msn
com
language
toss around
and
work
Plaintiffs
Motions
from
ORDER
The
Court having
the
County
and
considered
parties in support
motions filed
of
Court finds that
the
benefits
sex couples
NOW
THEREFORE
there
is
48 and
responses
64
the
the
no legitimate state
privileges
solely on the
Court GRANTS
of
ECF Nos
their motions and
protections
same
in each
Responses
and
the
ECF Nos
arguments
Court GRANTS
the
23 and
made
42
by all
summary judgment
by Plaintiffs
The
The
the
Defendants
the
Motions
basis
Court hereby
Due
Process
and
that
and
DECLARES
Equal
as such
it
is
that
void
those
that
would
justify
responsibilities
couples
are composed
ECF Nos
23 and
of
42
of
the
denial
of
marriage to
filed
by the
plaintiffs
cases
Article 15
Protection
that
and
two consolidated
The
interest
obligations
and
clauses
section
of
the
unenforceable
ENJOINED
5A
of
the
Fourteenth
Defendants
from enforcing
Oregon
Constitution
Amendment to
and
the
U S
their officers
violates
the
Constitution
agents
Article 15
section
5A
of
the
041
ORS 106
150
violate
and
Oregon
Constitution
The
Court also DECLARES
Process
and
prohibit
couples
the
Equal
a person
the
couple
officers
any of
the
and
benefits
and
same
state
person
privileges
qualified
or local
sex couples
rights
another
ORS 106
benefits
of
the
and
same
obligations
to
law
otherwise
are unenforceable
qualified
to
only to
the
gender
or would
law
and
of
same
or to
Due
would
sex
marriage
and
basis
responsibilities
the
they
where
their
or applying
as the
marry in Oregon
that
deny
Defendants
from enforcing
or ordinance
obligations
extent
responsibilities
Oregon
ENJOINED
regulation
privileges
and
marry under
or any other
marriage to
010
Clauses
be otherwise
agents
statutes
ORS 106
from marrying
rights
would
that
Protection
to
those
deny
deny
those
that
accompany
couples
marriage in Oregon
The
Court finds that
performed
Oregon
in other
law
The
recognition
basis
and
to
deny
that
County
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
of
where
that
currently recognize
those
the
Due
or local
law
a same
Defendant
same
Process
and
regulation
Equal
that
other
respects
Protection
or ordinance
from denying

Clauses
can
amount
in another
valid
under
require
to
that
any valid
jurisdiction
recognition
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Defendants
Potter
Portland
Phone
no state
recognition
the
Sheila
1515
State
Court DECLARES
and
ENJOINS
the
jurisdictions
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Kevin Diaz
To
Middleton
Jennifer
m morf
jenny
Potter
multco us
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 1 28 48
Subject
RE
mary h
Sheila
misaak
LEaston
com lake
law works com
com TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
msn com
williams
PM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
proposed
language
agree
we
Are
having a
still
2 00 pm
at
call
Kevin Daz
Legal Director
ACLU
P
Oregon
of
Box 40585
www
may
message
From
Sent
that
Middleton
believe
different
Jennifer
is
it
incorrect
Eugene
541
to
licenses
genders
or
legally
transmitted
JMiddleton
to
privileged
you and
If
ou
delete th
from
email
is
your
recipient
please
immediately
advise
the
sender by
system
com
justicelawyers
dorsayindianlaw
com TRJohnson
CONFIDENTIAL
think
LEaston
perkinscoie
use the term
gender identities
of
confidential
doj state or us
misaak
doj state or us
currently
proposed
same gender
rather
com
com
law works
lake
com
perkinscoie
language
than
same sex
Twopeople can be the same sex but have
confuses the issue to speak in terms of samegender when the
it
is
or lack thereof
the
that
sex
recognized
the applicants
on
might identify with
suggest
changing
criteria
that
documents
their birth certificateor identification
the State uses to

not whatever
throughout
it
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
us
RE Geiger Rummell
deny marriage
spectrum
mailto
potter
multco
anna joyce
is
inadvertently
2014 1 21 PM
sheila
morf
ITSELF
that
has been
May 16
Kevin Diaz
information
message
Jennifer
Subject
contain
this
Friday
jenny
Cc
97240
aclu or org
FREEDOM CAN T PROTECT
reply email
To
kdiaz
aclu or org
BECAUSE
This
OR
Portland
503 227 6928
Street
Schaller
Ste
PC
1050
OR 97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
If
NOTICE
This message
may
contain
LEaston
This communication
dorsayindianlaw
including
communications
confidential
Lea Ann Easton
Notice
com
it
and
notify
protected
the sender
com 05 16 14 12 50 PM
any attachments
may
contain
in
intended
for
specific
and are hereby
attachments
this
notified
that
Notice 2
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
Misha and
we
not intended
is
any transaction
party
this
distribution of
to
US
you are not the
If
this
communication
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and
by law
protected
inform you that any
to another
is
prohibited
are sending
and
is strictly
it
any attachments
including
avoiding
communication
IRS regulations
with
and purpose
individual
you should delete
recipient
and cannot be
contained
used
or
herein
this
for the
promoting marketing
ii
in this
of
We
clients
considersation
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
mailto sheila
morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 04 PM
jenny
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Subject
May 15
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
com
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Tom
Lea Ann Easton
Perriguey
justicelawyers
language
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
protections
nds
privileges
NOW
two
GRANTS
obligations
the Motions for
would
same sex
couples
benets
solely
on the
basis
women
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
Summary Judgment
ENJOINED
DECLARES
Defendants
ORS
106 010
and
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
agents
section
106 041 1
in each
5A
and
US
Constitution
Due
and
that as
and employees are
ORS
106 150 1
violate
the
Due
Process

Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

it
and
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
no
that there is
ocers
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
agents
and employees are
PERMANENTLY
to
ENJOINED
ordinance
rights
benets
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
nds
The Court
currently recognize
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
same sex marriages
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
that
recognition
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
m morf
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 1 28 55
Subject
RE
we
From
Sent
To
going to
Potter
Cc
Joyce Anna
Subject
kdiaz
com
mary h
And
CONFIDENTIAL
doj state or us
org
Lea Ann Easton
aclu or
Sent
To
kdiaz
misaak
Cc
Joyce Anna
believe
different
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed
something
spectrum
of
975 Oak
541
proposed
language
law works
lake
com
m morf
jenny
multco
us
that
language
we
ve goen into in the
brieng
way
to go
probably not the
is
at all
and having
that
com
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIAL
use the term

think
currently
com
dorsayindianlaw
law works
lake
com
jenny
morf
multco us
com
msn com
williams
LEaston
perkinscoie
proposed
same gender
rather
language
than
same sex
it
is
the
or lack thereof
that
sex
recognized
the applicants
on
might identify with
changing
suggest
that
criteria
documents
the State uses to

not whatever
in
throughout
it
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
Eugene
to
licenses
genders
TRJohnson
mary h
incorrect
is
JMiddleton
Potter Sheila
com
gender identities
deny marriage
Jennifer
mailto
RE Geiger Rummell
it
com
2014 1 21 PM
org
aclu or
Subject
Middleton
May 16
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
msn com
williams
gender identity isn
Jennifer
Friday
law works
com
perkinscoie
terminology suddenly appear in the wrien order
From
lake
com TRJohnson
PM
potter
TRJohnson
RE Geiger Rummell
agree
aclu or org
msn com
williams
Geiger Rummell
mailto sheila
Middleton
perkinscoie
kdiaz
perkinscoie
2014 1 28 PM
May 16
Jennifer
misaak
Sheila
Friday
mary h
misaak
2 pm
at
talk
Middleton
multco us
CC
Are
Sheila
Potter
jenny
Schaller
PC
1050
Ste
Street
OR 97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
If
NOTICE
LEaston
recipient
for
including
specific
To comply
communication
of
recommending
with
including
avoiding
that
it
communications
confidential
it
and
may
and purpose
communication
and
contain
is
any attachments
we
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
is strictly
IRS regulations
party
protected
the sender
not intended
to another
notify
com 05 16 14 12 50 PM
any attachments
this
notified
purpose
contain
individual
you should delete
and are hereby
attachments
Notice 2
may
dorsayindianlaw
This communication
intended
This message
Lea Ann Easton
Notice
com
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
herein
in this
for the
or
Misha and
are sending
this
and
this
of
We
clients
considersation
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
mailto sheila
morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 04 PM
jenny
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Subject
May 15
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
com
Kevin Diaz
Johnson
kdiaz
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Tom
Lea Ann Easton
Perriguey
justicelawyers
language
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
Summary Judgment
for
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
nds
protections
privileges
NOW
two
GRANTS
obligations
the Motions for
would
same sex
couples
benets
on the
solely
basis
women
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
Summary Judgment
ENJOINED
DECLARES
Defendants
ORS
106 010
and
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

it
and
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
no
that there is
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
The Court
nds
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
currently recognize
that the
Due
same sex marriages
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
or local law
regulation
that
recognition
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Sheila
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
m morf
jenny
Jennifer
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 1 30 16
Subject
RE
ve
got
a phone
From
Lea
Sent
Friday
To
Ann
Potter
jenny
Cc
call
mailto
2014
Joyce
Subject
Are we
Anna
RE
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
Jennifer
lake
law
jenny
talk
Sheila
To
at
H
2014
Cc
Anna
Subject
RE
And
agree
having
JennyMADKOUR
com
language
Reviewing
dorsayindianlaw
kdiaz
com
the
changes
now
com
aclu
or org
TRJohnson
lake
law
perkinscoie
works
com
com
com
sheila
lake
proposed
potter
aclu
law
language
doj state
or org mailto
works
jenny
or us
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
identity isn t
aclu
or org
Lea
Ann
Easton
com mailto
appear
com
mary h williams msn
proposed
something
suddenly
com
perkinscoie
CONFIDENTIAL
terminology
kdiaz
com
m morf multco us
misaak
com mailto
Geiger Rummell
gender
proposed
can
perkinscoie
mary h williams msn
that
perkinscoie
1 28 PM
com mailto
perkinscoie
so I
Middleton
kdiaz
com mailto
perkinscoie
com
law works
2 pm
Middleton
works
Joyce
2 30
CONFIDENTIAL
mailto
May 16
TRJohnson
and
misaak
misaak
CONFIDENTIAL
mary h williams msn
to
lake
com TRJohnson
msn com
williams
LEaston
Geiger Rummell
going
aclu or org
perkinscoie
1 29 PM
Jennifer
m morf multco us
kdiaz
misaak
PM
from 1 30 to
May 16
Sheila
mary h
Geiger Rummell
Easton
Middleton
multco us
that
we
in the
com
language
ve
gotten
into
written order
is
in the
briefing
probably
not
the
at
all
way
to
go
From
Jennifer
Sent
Friday
To
kdiaz
LEaston
works
Middleton
May 16
aclu
lake
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
Anna
Joyce
Subject
I
RE
believe
be the
it
same
is
is
Johnson
Street
541
OR
683
to
changing
Schaller
Ste
the
criteria
lake
proposed
the
rather
I
think
State
than
it
uses to
genders
or lack
thereof
com
language
gender
identities
that
m morf multco us
com
mary h williams msn
same
law
jenny
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
term
com
that
same
sex
Two
confuses
the
issue
deny
to
can
speak
marriage licenses
or identification
the
people
applicants
documents
might identify
throughout
PC
1050
97401
2506
NOTICE
attorney
privilege
client
the
com mailto
This
CONFIDENTIALITY
Lea
TRJohnson
gender
Sheila
perkinscoie
use the
of
it
notify
jenny
recognized
Potter
dorsayindianlaw
CONFIDENTIAL
when
sex
com
Middleton
975
Eugene
com
different
in a spectrum
Johnson
Oak
gender
the
suggest
J
have
justicelawyers
or org
LEaston
misaak
com mailto
incorrect
same
whatever
Jennifer
works
aclu
mary h williams msn
sex but
currently
with
law
Geiger Rummell
in terms of
not
kdiaz
com mailto
com mailto
Cc
JMiddleton
1 21 PM
or org mailto
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
misaak
mailto
2014
message
If
may contain
you have
received
confidential
this message
com
communications
in error
protected
please delete
it
by the
and
sender
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
05 16 14
12 50 PM
Notice
This
information
communication
intended
including
for a specific
any attachments
individual
and
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
or confidential
by law
If
you
are not
the
materials
intended
and
distribution
recipient
any attachments
of
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
the
copying
on it
is
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
and
Code
or matter
or
addressed
herein
Misha and
respective
Lea
worked
edits to
We
are sending
mailto
the
this out
proposed
to
the
order
group
this morning
for discussion
on behalf
and
of
our
considersation
Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
Sheila
May 15
To
Jenny MADKOUR
Ann
Easton
Tom
JMiddleton
Joyce
Subject
2014
jenny
kdiaz
Anna
Perkins
aclu
Mary
potter
doj state
or us
Coie
jenny
Misha Isaak
com mailto
JMiddleton
m morf multco us
Perkins
Coie
justicelawyers
Lake
Jennifer
com
Perriguey
Lea
Middleton
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Williams
Geiger Rummell
mary h williams msn
CONFIDENTIAL
for people
Proposed language
sheila
5 04 PM
Johnson
justicelawyers
or org mailto
Cc
on additional
clients
to
proposed
com mailto
mary h williams msn
com
language
toss around
and
work
Plaintiffs
Motions
from
ORDER
The
Court having
the
County
and
considered
parties in support
motions filed
of
Court finds that
the
benefits
sex couples
NOW
THEREFORE
there
is
48 and
responses
64
the
the
no legitimate state
privileges
solely on the
Court GRANTS
of
ECF Nos
their motions and
protections
same
in each
Responses
and
the
ECF Nos
arguments
Court GRANTS
the
23 and
made
42
by all
summary judgment
by Plaintiffs
The
The
the
Defendants
the
Motions
basis
Court hereby
Due
Process
and
that
and
DECLARES
Equal
as such
it
is
that
void
those
that
would
justify
responsibilities
couples
are composed
ECF Nos
23 and
of
42
of
the
denial
of
marriage to
filed
by the
plaintiffs
cases
Article 15
Protection
that
and
two consolidated
The
interest
obligations
and
clauses
section
of
the
unenforceable
ENJOINED
5A
of
the
Fourteenth
Defendants
from enforcing
Oregon
Constitution
Amendment to
and
the
U S
their officers
violates
the
Constitution
agents
Article 15
section
5A
of
the
041
ORS 106
150
violate
and
Oregon
Constitution
The
Court also DECLARES
Process
and
prohibit
couples
the
officers
statutes
and
and
same
person
qualified
state
benefits
or local
to
law
otherwise
of
the
and
same
obligations
qualified
to
only to
the
gender
or would
law
from enforcing
or ordinance
and
that
deny
of
Defendants
same
or to
Due
would
sex
marriage
and
basis
responsibilities
the
they
where
their
or applying
as the
marry in Oregon
obligations
extent
responsibilities
Oregon
ENJOINED
regulation
privileges
and
marry under
sex couples
rights
another
ORS 106
are unenforceable
privileges
be otherwise
agents
the
010
Clauses
benefits
or any other
marriage to
ORS 106
from marrying
rights
would
that
Protection
a person
the
couple
any of
Equal
to
those
deny
deny
those
that
accompany
couples
marriage in Oregon
The
Court finds that
performed
Oregon
in other
law
The
recognition
basis
and
to
and
deny
ENJOINS
the
Court DECLARES
that
no state
recognition
the
State
Defendants
jurisdictions
County
of
where
that
currently recognize
those
the
Due
or local
law
a same
Defendant
same
Process
and
regulation
Equal
that
other
Protection
or ordinance
from denying
recognition
can
respects
Clauses
amount
in another
valid
require
to
under
that
any valid
jurisdiction
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
of
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
Trial Counsel
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
jenny
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
5 16 2014 1 30 57
Subject
RE
we move
Sent
To
From
Sent
Potter
misaak
Cc
mary h
Joyce Anna
we
From
Sent
To
misaak
mailto
Jennifer
com
Potter
Friday
perkinscoie
Joyce Anna
Subject
LEaston
proposed
can
Sent
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
To
kdiaz
misaak
mailto sheila
kdiaz
com
Cc
aclu or
Joyce Anna
Subject
believe
different
aclu or
is
spectrum
Jennifer
of
org
org
com
or
org
proposed
975 Oak
Eugene
541
to
licenses
morf
multco
us
language
lake
proposed
law works
com
jenny
morf
multco us
that
language
we
ve goen into in the
brieng
way
to go
probably not the
is
at all
and having
that
com
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIAL
think
currently
PC
OR 97401
justicelawyers
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
law works
lake
com
jenny
morf
multco us
com
proposed
same gender
rather
language
than
same sex
it
is
or lack thereof
1050
LEaston
perkinscoie
use the term
683 2506
jmiddleton
jenny
msn com
williams
Schaller
Ste
TRJohnson
Middleton
Street
com
law works
com
something
JMiddleton
Potter Sheila
com
incorrect
Johnson Johnson
lake
com
Lea Ann Easton
perkinscoie
CONFIDENTIAL
mailto
mary h
genders
now
the changes
2014 1 21 PM
gender identities
deny marriage
language
msn com
williams
RE Geiger Rummell
it
com Jenny MADKOUR

com
doj state or us
potter
TRJohnson
Middleton
May 16
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
msn com
CONFIDENTIAL
gender identity isn
Jennifer
Friday
law works
Reviewing
From
lake
TRJohnson
2 pm
mary h
And
org
aclu or
com
dorsayindianlaw
Middleton
RE Geiger Rummell
agree
language
2014 1 28 PM
May 16
Middleton
Jennifer
proposed
msn com
williams
at
talk
Sheila
kdiaz
CONFIDENTIAL
TRJohnson
mary h
going to
CONFIDENTIAL
perkinscoie
williams
RE Geiger Rummell
misaak
Cc
MADKOUR
com
2014 1 29 PM
May 16
Sheila
Jenny
perkinscoie
msn com
williams
from 1 30 to 2 30 so
call
perkinscoie
Subject
Are
us
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
com
law works
doj state or us
potter
Middleton
Jennifer
RE Geiger Rummell
ve got a phone
lake
com TRJohnson
PM
Geiger Rummell
mailto sheila
multco
Joyce Anna
aclu or org
perkinscoie
2014 1 30 PM
May 16
m morf
Subject
To
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
jenny
Cc
Potter
Friday
mary h
kdiaz
misaak
3 pm
to
it
Middleton
multco us
Sent
From
m morf
CC
Shall
Sheila
the
that
sex
recognized
the applicants
on
might identify with
suggest
changing
criteria
that
documents

it
throughout
the State uses to

not whatever
in
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
NOTICE
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
intended
for
specific
and are hereby
attachments
this
notified
To comply
that
communication
purpose
of
including
recommending
Misha and
to another
this
and
is
we
not intended
any transaction
distribution of
to
US
you are not the
If
this
communication
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and
by law
protected
inform you that any
is
prohibited
are sending
contain
any attachments
party
protected
the sender
notify
avoiding
and purpose
is strictly
it
and
may
communication
IRS regulations
with
it
com 05 16 14 12 50 PM
individual
communications
confidential
any attachments
including
you should delete
recipient
Notice 2
contain
dorsayindianlaw
This communication
Notice
may
This message
If
and cannot be
contained
used
or
herein
this
for the
promoting marketing
ii
in this
of
We
clients
considersation
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
mailto sheila
morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 04 PM
jenny
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Subject
May 15
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
com
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Tom
Lea Ann Easton
Perriguey
justicelawyers
language
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
protections
nds
that there is
privileges
NOW
two
GRANTS
obligations
the Motions for
would
same sex
couples
benets
solely
on the
basis
women
is
Summary Judgment
ECF Nos
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
in each
cases
DECLARES

it
and
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
no
that Article 15
clauses
section
5A
of the Fourteenth
Defendants
and
Amendment
their
ocers
to the
agents
US
Constitution
and employees are
and
Due
that as
PERMANENTLY
The Court
ENJOINED
DECLARES
also
from enforcing
that
ORS
Article 15
106 010
ORS

privileges
obligations
and
5A
and
106 041 1
ORS
106 150 1
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance

rights
benets
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ENJOINED
violate
section
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
nds
The Court
currently recognize
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
same sex marriages
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
that
recognition
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton

jenny
m morf
Jennifer
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 1 31 33
Subject
RE
That
works
From
Lea
Sent
Friday
To
Cc
Ann
2014
Shall
we
move
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
Lea
jenny
Jennifer
it
to
Sheila
May 16
Cc
Anna
a phone
Lea
Sent
Friday
Ann
Potter
law
jenny
call
mailto
2014
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
Cc
Anna
Are we
RE
From
Potter
Sent
Friday
To
Jennifer
lake
law
talk
Sheila
May 16
perkinscoie
Cc
Anna
Subject
RE
And
agree
and
having
kdiaz
aclu
or org
com
mary h williams msn
proposed
so I
can
com
language
Reviewing
the
changes
now
com
kdiaz
aclu
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Ann
Easton
com
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
sheila
kdiaz
lake
aclu
law
com
mary h williams msn
proposed
potter
com
language
doj state
or org mailto
works
jenny
or us
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
identity isn t
aclu
or org
Lea
com mailto
appear
com
mary h williams msn
proposed
something
suddenly
com
perkinscoie
CONFIDENTIAL
terminology
kdiaz
com
m morf multco us
misaak
com mailto
Geiger Rummell
gender
or org mailto
m morf multco us
misaak
mary h williams msn
that
or us
1 28 PM
com mailto
TRJohnson
Joyce
Jenny
com
com
dorsayindianlaw
works
jenny
mailto
2014
com mailto
perkinscoie
com
2 pm
Middleton
works
works
perkinscoie
language
perkinscoie
CONFIDENTIAL
misaak
law
com mailto
at
aclu
perkinscoie
2 30
mary h williams msn
to
law
m morf multco us
Middleton
lake
Geiger Rummell
going
lake
TRJohnson
Jenny MADKOUR
com mailto
LEaston
com mailto
TRJohnson
Subject
or org
com
1 29 PM
Jennifer
com mailto
kdiaz
com
TRJohnson
from 1 30 to
May 16
Sheila
aclu
doj state
CONFIDENTIAL
Easton
works
Joyce
works
jenny
com mailto
misaak
jenny
law
misaak
Geiger Rummell
From
com
proposed
potter
Middleton
lake
mary h williams msn
RE
lake
language
com
sheila
com mailto
perkinscoie
To
JennyMADKOUR
com
1 30 PM
Jennifer
com mailto
Subject
kdiaz
perkinscoie
CONFIDENTIAL
mailto
2014
Easton
perkinscoie
got
com
perkinscoie
3 pm
TRJohnson
ve
proposed
dorsayindianlaw
misaak
mary h williams msn
works
Joyce
CONFIDENTIAL
Middleton
misaak
law works
msn com
williams
LEaston
Geiger Rummell
Ann
law
lake
com TRJohnson
1 31 PM
m morf multco us
Anna
RE
lake
mailto
May 16
Sheila
Subject
To
aclu or org
perkinscoie
PM
Geiger Rummell
Easton
jenny
Joyce
mary h
kdiaz
misaak
for me
Potter
MADKOUR
Middleton
multco us
that
we
in the
com
language
ve
gotten
into
written order
is
in the
briefing
probably
not
the
at
all
way
to
go
From
Jennifer
Sent
Friday
To
kdiaz
LEaston
works
Middleton
May 16
aclu
lake
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
Anna
Joyce
Subject
RE
kdiaz
com mailto
law
works
com mailto
Cc
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
1 21 PM
or org mailto
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
misaak
mailto
2014
misaak
com mailto
or org
LEaston
com
jenny
Potter
com
H
lake

com
mary h williams msn
proposed
language
law
jenny
com
perkinscoie
com mailto
CONFIDENTIAL
Sheila
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
mary h williams msn
Geiger Rummell
aclu
com
m morf multco us
believe
be the
it
same
in terms of
is
whatever
with
Johnson
Street
OR
683
when
sex
changing
of
it
Schaller
Ste
same
gender
identities
criteria
that
the
rather
I
think
State
than
it
uses to
genders
or lack
thereof
that
same
sex
Two
confuses
the
issue
deny
to
can
speak
marriage licenses
or identification
the
people
applicants
documents
might identify
throughout
PC
1050
97401
2506
NOTICE
attorney
privilege
client
the
com mailto
This
CONFIDENTIALITY
Lea
the
term
gender
recognized
notify
use the
Middleton
975
Eugene
gender
to
different
in a spectrum
Johnson
Oak
have
the
suggest
Jennifer
541
incorrect
same
currently
not
is
sex but
message
If
may contain
you have
received
confidential
com
communications
this message
in error
protected
please delete
by the
it
and
sender
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
05 16 14
12 50 PM
Notice
This
communication
including
information
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
the
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
any U S
is
not
under
party
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
and
Code
or matter
or
addressed
herein
Misha and
respective
Lea
worked
edits to
We
are sending
mailto
the
this out
proposed
to
the
order
group
this morning
for discussion
on behalf
and
of
our
considersation
Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
Sheila
May 15
To
Jenny MADKOUR
Ann
Easton
Tom
JMiddleton
Joyce
Subject
2014
jenny
Johnson
kdiaz
Anna
aclu
Mary
Perkins
potter
doj state
or us
Coie
jenny
Misha Isaak
com mailto
JMiddleton
m morf multco us
Perkins
Coie
justicelawyers
Lake
Jennifer
com
Perriguey
Lea
Middleton
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Williams
Geiger Rummell
mary h williams msn
CONFIDENTIAL
for people
Proposed language
sheila
5 04 PM
justicelawyers
or org mailto
Cc
on additional
clients
to
proposed
com mailto
mary h williams msn
com
language
toss around
and
work
Plaintiffs
Motions
from
ORDER
The
Court having
the
County
and
considered
Defendants
parties in support
motions filed
of
Court finds that
the
benefits
sex couples
NOW
THEREFORE
Court GRANTS
of
the
their motions and
there
protections
same
in each
ECF Nos
48 and
responses
64
the
and
the
ECF Nos
arguments
Court GRANTS
the
made
23 and
42
by all
summary judgment
by Plaintiffs
The
The
the
Responses
is
no legitimate state
privileges
solely on the
the
Motions
basis
obligations
that
those
cases
and
couples
two consolidated
interest
that
would
justify
responsibilities
are composed
ECF Nos
23 and
42
of
of
the
denial
of
marriage to
filed
by the
plaintiffs
The
Court hereby
Due
Process
and
that
and
DECLARES
Equal
as such
it
that
Article 15
Protection
is
void
and
clauses
section
of
the
unenforceable
ENJOINED
5A
of
the
Fourteenth
Defendants
from enforcing
Oregon
Constitution
Amendment to
and
the
U S
their officers
violates
the
Constitution
agents
Article 15
section
5A
of
the
041
ORS 106
150
violate
and
Oregon
Constitution
The
Court also DECLARES
Process
and
prohibit
couples
the
Equal
a person
the
couple
officers
any of
the
and
benefits
and
same
state
person
privileges
qualified
or local
sex couples
rights
another
ORS 106
benefits
of
the
and
same
obligations
to
law
otherwise
are unenforceable
qualified
to
only to
the
gender
or would
law
and
of
same
or to
Due
would
sex
marriage
and
basis
responsibilities
the
they
where
their
or applying
as the
marry in Oregon
that
deny
Defendants
from enforcing
or ordinance
obligations
extent
responsibilities
Oregon
ENJOINED
regulation
privileges
and
marry under
or any other
marriage to
010
Clauses
be otherwise
agents
statutes
ORS 106
from marrying
rights
would
that
Protection
to
those
deny
deny
those
that
accompany
couples
marriage in Oregon
The
Court finds that
performed
Oregon
in other
law
The
recognition
basis
and
to
deny
that
County
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
of
where
that
currently recognize
those
the
Due
or local
law
a same
Defendant
same
Process
and
regulation
Equal
that
other
respects
Protection
or ordinance
from denying

Clauses
can
amount
in another
valid
under
require
to
that
any valid
jurisdiction
recognition
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Defendants
Potter
Portland
Phone
no state
recognition
the
Sheila
1515
State
Court DECLARES
and
ENJOINS
the
jurisdictions
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
MADKOUR
Sheila H
From
Jenny
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton

jenny
m morf
mary h
Jennifer
williams
Sent
5 16 2014 1 32 37
Subject
Re
3pm
Middleton
multco us
kdiaz
misaak
aclu or org
perkinscoie
lake
law works
com TRJohnson
com
Jenny
perkinscoie
com
MADKOUR
Joyce
Anna
msn com
PM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
proposed
language
fine
is
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
May
Fri
From
Potter
jenny
Joyce
Subject
Shall
Sent
to 3
us
morf
sheila
information
and
protected
then destroy
potter
by
the attorney
copies of
all
this
doj state or us
client
privilege
transmission
wrote
LEaston
Middleton
misaak
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
org
or
com
lake
TRJohnson
law works
com Jenny MADKOUR

com
perkinscoie
msn com
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed language
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 1 30 PM
Jennifer
multco
us
mary h
Middleton
misaak
williams
RE Geiger Rummell
ve got a phone
com
dorsayindianlaw
pm
May 16
Joyce Anna
Subject
mailto
mary h williams
Sheila
Friday
Potter Sheila
reply email
2014 1 31 PM
Jennifer
Lea Ann Easton
jenny
Cc
Potter
1 31
Geiger Rummell
it
me
Anna
we move
From
To
at
multco
RE
may
Sheila
morf
or the attachments
PM
May 16
Friday
and
by
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Cc
message
16 2014
That works for
To
500
Suite
Oregon 97214
Portland
call
kdiaz
perkinscoie
aclu
or
com
org
lake
TRJohnson
law works
com Jenny MADKOUR

com
perkinscoie
msn com
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed
can
language
Reviewing
the changes
now
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Potter
misaak
Cc
Joyce Anna
we
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
mary h
Sheila
Joyce Anna
CONFIDENTIAL
mailto sheila
kdiaz
com
org
proposed
aclu or
Sent
perkinscoie
To
kdiaz
misaak
Cc
aclu or
Joyce Anna
Subject
Middleton
believe
different
CONFIDENTIAL
org
is
Jennifer
of
incorrect
Eugene
541
us
law works
lake
com
jenny
morf
multco us
proposed
that
language
we
ve goen into in the
brieng
way
to go
probably not the
is
at all
and having
Street
CONFIDENTIAL
use the term

think
LEaston
currently
com
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
law works
lake
com
jenny
morf
multco us
com
msn com
williams
proposed
same gender
rather
language
than
same sex
it
is
or lack thereof
Schaller
Ste
the
that
sex
recognized
the applicants
on
might identify with
suggest
changing
criteria
that
documents
the State uses to

not whatever
throughout
it
PC
1050
OR 97401
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
If
that
com
justicelawyers
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
to
licenses
TRJohnson
mary h
genders
multco
com
something
JMiddleton
Potter Sheila
com
gender identities
deny marriage
spectrum
mailto
RE Geiger Rummell
it
morf
2014 1 21 PM
May 16
perkinscoie
msn com
williams
gender identity isn
Jennifer
Friday
jenny
language
Lea Ann Easton
org
From
com
law works
lake
doj state or us
potter
TRJohnson
mary h
And
or
com
pm
RE Geiger Rummell
agree
aclu
2014 1 28 PM
May 16
perkinscoie
kdiaz
perkinscoie
msn com
williams
Middleton
Jennifer
com
dorsayindianlaw
Middleton
TRJohnson
going to talk at 2
Subject
LEaston
RE Geiger Rummell
misaak
Cc
Jennifer
com
perkinscoie
Subject
Are
Sheila
mailto
2014 1 29 PM
May 16
com
NOTICE
This message
may
contain
communications
confidential
it
and
notify
protected
the sender
in
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
This communication
Notice

disclosure
copying
including
and purpose
com 05 16 14 12 50 PM
dorsayindianlaw
may
any attachments
and
protected
is
contain privileged
by law
If
or con
you are not the
notified
or the taking
fidential
you should
intended recipient
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
Misha and
with
including
IRS
we
regulations
any attachments
under the
worked on additional
are sending this out to the group
inform you that any
Code
Revenue
Internal
or matter addressed
is
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
edits
to the proposed order this morning on behalf of our respective clients
We
for discussion and considersation
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
Joyce Anna
Subject
mailto sheila
May 15
jenny
Jennifer
morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 04 PM
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
Lea Ann Easton
com
Kevin Diaz
Tom
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Perriguey
justicelawyers
language
ORDER

Responses
ECF Nos
Plaintis
Motions
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
The Court
nds
protections
privileges
NOW
two
GRANTS
obligations
the Motions for
would
same sex
couples
benets
on the
solely
basis
women
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
Summary Judgment
ENJOINED
DECLARES
Defendants
ORS
106 010
and
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

it
and
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
no
that there is
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
The Court
nds
other jurisdictions
currently recognize
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
recognition
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
Sheila
same sex marriages
Justice
that
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
Fifth
OR
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
971 673 5000
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Isaak
To
Jenny
Misha
Perkins
Coie
MADKOUR
Potter Sheila H Lea Ann Easton
Jennifer Middleton
kdiaz
MADKOUR jenny m morf multco us Johnson Thomas R
CC
mary h
williams
Sent
5 16 2014 1 33 52
Subject
Re
aclu or org
Jr
lake
law
works
com
Jenny
Joyce Anna
Perkins Coie
msn com
PM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
proposed
language
can do 3
Sent from
On May
3pm
my iPhone
16
2014
PM
1 32
at
Jenny
MADKOUR
jenny
m madkour
multco us
wrote
fine
is
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
May
Fri
From
Potter
jenny
Joyce
Subject
Shall
Sent
Potter
it
Joyce Anna
Subject
reply email
sheila
information
and
protected
then destroy
potter
by
the attorney
copies of
all
this
doj state or us
client
privilege
transmission
wrote
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 1 31 PM
to 3
us
Middleton
misaak
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
com
or
org
lake
TRJohnson
law works
com Jenny MADKOUR

com
perkinscoie
msn com
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed language
pm
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 1 30 PM
May 16
morf
Potter Sheila
mary h williams
Sheila
Friday
1 31
Jennifer
Lea Ann Easton
jenny
Cc
at
Geiger Rummell
we move
From
To
RE
me
multco
Anna
may
Sheila
morf
or the attachments
PM
May 16
Friday
and
by
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
Cc
message
16 2014
That works for
To
500
Suite
Oregon 97214
Portland
Jennifer
multco
us
mary h
Middleton
misaak
williams
RE Geiger Rummell
kdiaz
perkinscoie
aclu
com
or
org
lake
TRJohnson
law works
msn com
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed
com Jenny MADKOUR

com
perkinscoie
language
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
ve got a phone
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Potter
misaak
Cc
Joyce Anna
we
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
mary h
Sheila
Joyce Anna
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
com
or
org
proposed
Sent
kdiaz
com
aclu or
TRJohnson
org
To
kdiaz
misaak
Cc
aclu or
Joyce Anna
Subject
believe
different
is
CONFIDENTIAL
spectrum
Jennifer
org
of
incorrect
Eugene
541
to
licenses
genders
OR 97401
683 2506
us
lake
law works
com
jenny
morf
multco us
proposed
that
language
we
ve goen into in the
brieng
way
to go
probably not the
is
at all
and having
that
com
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIAL
use the term

I
think
currently
1050
dorsayindianlaw
com
law works
lake
com
jenny
morf
multco us
com
proposed
same gender
rather
language
than
same sex
it
is
or lack thereof
PC
LEaston
perkinscoie
msn com
williams
Schaller
Ste
TRJohnson
Middleton
Street
multco
com
something
JMiddleton
Potter Sheila
com
mary h
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
mailto
gender identities
deny marriage
morf
2014 1 21 PM
RE Geiger Rummell
it
msn com
williams
Middleton
May 16
perkinscoie
jenny
language
Lea Ann Easton
perkinscoie
gender identity isn
Jennifer
Friday
com
law works
doj state or us
potter
From
lake
com
msn com
CONFIDENTIAL
mailto sheila
mary h
And
now
the changes
pm
RE Geiger Rummell
agree
Reviewing
2014 1 28 PM
May 16
perkinscoie
can
dorsayindianlaw
Middleton
williams
Middleton
Jennifer
LEaston
TRJohnson
going to talk at 2
Subject
Jennifer
com
RE Geiger Rummell
misaak
Cc
Sheila
mailto
2014 1 29 PM
May 16
perkinscoie
Subject
Are
call
the
that
sex
recognized
the applicants
on
might identify with
suggest
changing
criteria
that
documents

it
throughout
the State uses to

not whatever
in
jmiddleton
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
com
justicelawyers
NOTICE
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston

copying
including
and purpose
disclosure
contain
may
any attachments
and
is
communications
confidential
it
and
notify
protected
the sender
com 05 16 14 12 50 PM
dorsayindianlaw
This communication
Notice
may
This message
If
protected
contain privileged
by law
If
or con
you are not the
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
penalties
any transaction
Misha and
with
including
IRS
we
regulations
any attachments
under the
inform you that any
Code
Revenue
Internal
or matter addressed
is
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
edits
We
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
Joyce Anna
Subject
mailto sheila
May 15
jenny
Jennifer
morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 04 PM
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
for people to toss
Perriguey
justicelawyers
Lea Ann Easton
com
Kevin Diaz
msn com
proposed
language
ORDER
Tom
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
or
Perkins
org
Coie
Misha Isaak

Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
Summary Judgment
for
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
nds
protections
privileges
NOW
two
GRANTS
obligations
the Motions for
would
same sex
couples
benets
on the
solely
basis
women
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
Summary Judgment
ENJOINED
DECLARES
Defendants
ORS
106 010
and
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
agents
and employees are
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

it
and
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
no
that there is
PERMANENTLY
statutes
privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
The Court
nds
other jurisdictions
currently recognize
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state

recognition
same sex marriages
that
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
SW
1515
Portland
Phone
Fifth
OR
Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
FAX
971 673 1880
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
971 673 5000
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Kevin Diaz
To
Isaak
CC
com Jenny MADKOUR

jenny m morf
multco us
Perkins Coie Amanda Goad agoad
aclu org
Rose Saxe rsaxe
Joyce Anna mary h williams
msn com
Sent
5 16 2014 1 38 58
Subject
RE
Misha
lake
3 00
pm
From
Misha
MADKOUR
Jenny
Potter
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton

Johnson
Jennifer
Middleton
Thomas
Jr
aclu org
PM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
To
Jenny
Cc
Potter
MADKOUR
Sheila H
m morf
Subject
proposed
language
mailto
misaak
com
perkinscoie
2014 1 34 PM
Lea Ann Easton
multco
Re
Coie
Perkins
May 16
Friday
jenny
Coie
works
Isaak
Sent
Perkins
law works
us
Johnson
Geiger Rummell
Jennifer
Middleton
Thomas R
Jr
CONFIDENTIAL
Kevin Diaz
Perkins
proposed
lake
law works
Joyce Anna
Coie
com
mary h
Jenny
williams
MADKOUR
msn com
language
can do 3
my iPhone
Sent from
On May
3pm
16
2014
PM
1 32
at
Jenny
MADKOUR
jenny
m madkour
multco us
wrote
fine
is
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
madkour
503 988 3377
NOTICE
please
On
multco us
May
Fri
This message and
notify the
16 2014
That works for
From
To
Potter
Joyce
Subject
Shall
Sent
To
Potter
it
to 3
contain
confidential
Potter Sheila
all
information protectedby
copies
of
sheila
transmission
potter
the attorney
Thank
client
privilege
If
you have received
you
doj state or us
wrote
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
us
Middleton
misaak
kdiaz
aclu
perkinscoie
com
or
org
lake
TRJohnson
law works
com Jenny MADKOUR

com
perkinscoie
msn com
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed language
pm
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 1 30 PM
May 16
morf
may
email and then destroy
mary h williams
Sheila
Joyce Anna
Subject
PM
Geiger Rummell
Friday
mailto
Jennifer
Lea Ann Easton
jenny
Cc
Anna
RE
1 31
reply
2014 1 31 PM
multco
we move
From
Sheila
morf
attachments
me
May 16
Friday
jenny
Cc
at
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
or the
sender immediately by
this
fax
500
Suite
Oregon 97214
Portland
Jennifer
multco
us
mary h
Middleton
misaak
williams
RE Geiger Rummell
kdiaz
perkinscoie
aclu
com
or
org
lake
TRJohnson
law works
msn com
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed
com Jenny MADKOUR

com
perkinscoie
language
this
transmission
in error
ve got a phone
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
Potter
misaak
Cc
Joyce Anna
we
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
mary h
Sheila
Joyce Anna
com
aclu
or
org
proposed
Sent
kdiaz
com
aclu or
TRJohnson
To
kdiaz
misaak
Cc
aclu or
Joyce Anna
Subject
CONFIDENTIAL
is
it
spectrum
Jennifer
org
of
incorrect
to
licenses
genders
law works
lake
com
jenny
morf
multco us
proposed
that
language
we
ve goen into in the
brieng
way
to go
probably not the
is
and having
at all
that
com
justicelawyers
TRJohnson
CONFIDENTIAL
use the term

think
currently
com
dorsayindianlaw
law works
lake
com
jenny
morf
multco us
com
msn com
williams
LEaston
perkinscoie
proposed
same gender
rather
language
than
same sex
it
is
or lack thereof
the
sex
that
recognized
the applicants
on
might identify with
suggest
changing
criteria
that
documents
the State uses to

not whatever
in
throughout
it
Middleton
975 Oak
us
com
something
JMiddleton
Potter Sheila
com
mary h
Johnson Johnson
Street
Schaller
Ste
PC
1050
OR 97401
Eugene
541
mailto
gender identities
deny marriage
multco
2014 1 21 PM
RE Geiger Rummell
believe
different
morf
msn com
williams
Middleton
May 16
perkinscoie
language
Lea Ann Easton
org
perkinscoie
gender identity isn
Jennifer
Friday
jenny
doj state or us
potter
From
com
law works
lake
com
pm
mailto sheila
mary h
And
kdiaz
perkinscoie
CONFIDENTIAL
RE Geiger Rummell
agree
now
the changes
2014 1 28 PM
May 16
perkinscoie
Reviewing
msn com
williams
Middleton
Jennifer
can
dorsayindianlaw
Middleton
TRJohnson
going to talk at 2
Subject
Jennifer
com
RE Geiger Rummell
misaak
Cc
Sheila
LEaston
mailto
2014 1 29 PM
May 16
perkinscoie
Subject
Are
call
683 2506
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
If
com
NOTICE
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
copying
including
and purpose

disclosure
contain
may
any attachments
and
is
communications
confidential
it
and
notify
protected
the sender
com 05 16 14 12 50 PM
dorsayindianlaw
This communication
Notice
may
This message
protected
by law
contain privileged
If
you are not the
or con
fidential
or the taking
you should
intended recipient
notified
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To comply
communication
avoiding
with
including
penalties
IRS
regulations
we
any attachments
under the
Internal
Revenue
is
inform you that any
Code
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
any transaction
Misha and
or matter addressed
herein
We
edits
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
mailto sheila
morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 04 PM
jenny
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Subject
May 15
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
com
Kevin Diaz
Johnson
kdiaz
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Tom
Lea Ann Easton
Perriguey
justicelawyers
language
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
protections
nds
privileges
NOW
two
GRANTS
obligations
the Motions for
would
same sex
couples
benets
on the
solely
basis
women
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
Summary Judgment
ENJOINED
DECLARES
Defendants
ORS
106 010
and
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
ORS
and
their
ocers
to the
in each
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
Due
the
Process
ocers
agents
and employees are
statutes
privileges
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ordinance
benets
that as
rights
and
Constitution
ENJOINED
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
Amendment
Article 15

obligations
5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
privileges
ECF Nos
cases

it
and
consolidated
The Court hereby
such
THEREFORE
The Court
of the
no
that there is
PERMANENTLY
obligations
qualied
and
to
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
The Court
nds
currently recognize
same sex marriages
legally
performed
in
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
under Oregon law
The Court
and
that
no
state
that
recognition
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
SW
1515
Portland
Phone
Fifth
OR
Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
FAX
971 673 1880
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
971 673 5000
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Kevin Diaz
CC
Misha Isaak
Jenny
MADKOUR
jenny
rsaxe
5 16 2014 2 18 10
Subject
Re
we
are
all
available
Tom
mary h
Lea Ann Easton
Jennifer
Amanda Goad
msn com
Johnson
williams
Middleton
agoad
Jenny
aclu org
Rose
Saxe
PM
CONFIDENTIAL
Geiger Rummell
at
Sheila
Potter
multco us
Joyce Anna
aclu org
Sent
Seems
MADKOUR
m morf
proposed
language
Call in info
Call in number
1 862
902 0250
9166667
PIN
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On May
3 00
pm
From
16
Misha
PM
1 38
To
Jenny
Cc
Potter
Subject
Perkins
May 16
Friday
jenny
at
Justice
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
aclu or org
wrote
works
Isaak
Sent
2014
Civil
MADKOUR
Sheila H
morf
Re
Coie
mailto
Lea Ann Easton
multco
misaak
com
perkinscoie
2014 1 34 PM
us
Johnson
Geiger Rummell
Jennifer
Middleton
Thomas R
CONFIDENTIAL
Jr
Kevin Diaz
Perkins
proposed
Coie
lake
law works
com
Jenny
Joyce Anna mary h williams
MADKOUR
msn com
language
can do 3
Sent from
On May
3pm
16
2014
at
1 32
PM
Jenny
MADKOUR
jenny
m madkour
multco us
wrote
fine
is
Jenny
my iPhone
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
500
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
please
This message and
notify the
or the
attachments
sender immediately by
reply
may
contain
confidential
email and then destroy
all
information protectedby
copies
of
this
fax
Suite
Oregon 97214
transmission
the attorney
Thank
you
client
privilege
If
you have received
this
transmission
in error
On
May
Fri
16 2014
That works for
From
To
Potter
jenny
Cc
RE
Subject
Sent
To
Sent
To
Potter
we
From
Sent
To
Potter
com
And
proposed language
aclu
org
or
com
proposed
LEaston
can
Sent
To
kdiaz
misaak
kdiaz
aclu
CONFIDENTIAL
Cc
kdiaz
com
or
org
believe
different
aclu or
is
spectrum
Jennifer
of
org
org
proposed
morf
multco
us
lake
law works
com
jenny
morf
multco us
com
proposed
something
JMiddleton
to
licenses
Potter Sheila
com
incorrect
Middleton
language
Lea Ann Easton
perkinscoie
CONFIDENTIAL
mailto
TRJohnson
mary h
genders
jenny
that
language
we
ve goen into in the
brieng
way
to go
probably not the
is
at all
and having
that
com
justicelawyers
2014 1 21 PM
CONFIDENTIAL
use the term

I
LEaston
perkinscoie
think
currently
dorsayindianlaw
com
law works
lake
com
jenny
morf
multco us
com
msn com
williams
gender identities
deny marriage
com
law works
msn com
williams
RE Geiger Rummell
it
lake
com
doj state or us
potter
TRJohnson
Middleton
Joyce Anna
Subject
now
the changes
pm
mailto sheila
May 16
aclu or
language
msn com
williams
mary h
perkinscoie
com Jenny MADKOUR

com
perkinscoie
com
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
gender identity isn
Jennifer
Friday
law works
Reviewing
From
lake
TRJohnson
msn com
Middleton
RE Geiger Rummell
agree
perkinscoie
2014 1 28 PM
May 16
Joyce Anna
kdiaz
CONFIDENTIAL
TRJohnson
mary h
perkinscoie
Subject
mailto
Middleton
Jennifer
com Jenny MADKOUR

com
law works
2014 1 29 PM
Jennifer
Sheila
lake
TRJohnson
doj state or us
potter
perkinscoie
williams
going to talk at 2
Friday
org
or
com
CONFIDENTIAL
misaak
RE Geiger Rummell
misaak
Cc
aclu
call
May 16
Joyce Anna
Subject
Are
us
mary h
Sheila
com
msn com
Middleton
Jennifer
perkinscoie
kdiaz
perkinscoie
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton

Friday
misaak
Cc
misaak
RE Geiger Rummell
ve got a phone
From
wrote
doj state or us
2014 1 30 PM
multco
Joyce Anna
potter
pm
May 16
morf
Subject
to 3
Lea Ann Easton
us
mary h williams
it
sheila
dorsayindianlaw
Middleton
Jennifer
Sheila
Friday
jenny
Cc
Potter
LEaston
Geiger Rummell
we move
From
mailto
multco
Anna
Joyce
Shall
Sheila
morf
Potter Sheila
2014 1 31 PM
May 16
Friday
PM
me
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
1 31
at
proposed
same gender
rather
language
than
same sex
it
is
or lack thereof
the
that
sex
recognized
the applicants
on
might identify with
suggest
changing
criteria
that
documents

it
throughout
the State uses to

not whatever
in
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
1050
OR 97401
Eugene
541
PC
Schaller
Ste
Street
683 2506
jmiddleton
CONFIDENTIALITY
privilege
com
justicelawyers
NOTICE
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
contain

disclosure
copying
including
and purpose
may
any attachments
and
protected
is
communications
confidential
it
and
notify
protected
the sender
com 05 16 14 12 50 PM
dorsayindianlaw
This communication
Notice
may
This message
If
contain privileged
by law
If
or con
you are not the
notified
or the taking
fidential
you should
intended recipient
it
that
is
any
strictly
prohibited
To comply
Notice
communication
avoiding
Misha and
IRS
is
inform you that any
Code
Revenue
Internal
or matter addressed
we
regulations
any attachments
under the
penalties
any transaction
with
including
or
ii
promoting
federal tax advice
and cannot be
marketing
contained in this
used
for the purpose of
or recommending
to another
party
herein
edits
We
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Jenny
Perkins
Cc
Sheila
Thursday
MADKOUR
Coie
mailto sheila
morf
Middleton
multco
us
JMiddleton
Geiger Rummell
Proposed language
doj state or us
potter
2014 5 04 PM
jenny
Jennifer
Joyce Anna
Subject
May 15
Lake
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
Tom
Lea Ann Easton
com
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Johnson
aclu
or
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
org
msn com
proposed
for people to toss
Perriguey
justicelawyers
language
ORDER
Motions
ECF Nos
Responses
for
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
the Court
and the arguments
GRANTS
the
ECF Nos
made by
23and 42
all parties
the
in
by
Plaintis
The Court
protections
nds
that there is
privileges
NOW
no
obligations
and
would
same sex
couples
benets
solely
on the
basis
women
THEREFORE
The Court
GRANTS
the Motions for
Summary Judgment
ECF Nos
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
in each
two
of the
consolidated
The Court hereby
cases
DECLARES

such
clauses
is
it
that Article 15
PERMANENTLY
The Court
ENJOINED
DECLARES
also
and
Defendants
ORS
their
Article 15
106 010
ORS
privileges
and
obligations
to the
5A
and
ORS
106 150 1
Process
rights
benets

otherwise qualied
ocers
and employees are
agents
ordinance

privileges
obligations
qualied
and
to
PERMANENTLY
statutes
benets
Due
the
violate
rights
that as
ENJOINED
and
Constitution
and employees are
agents
section
US
Due
ocers
106 041 1

Amendment
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
5A
section
regulation
or
to marry in Oregon
responsibilities
that
or to
accompany
marriage in Oregon
The Court
nds
other jurisdictions
DECLARES
that the
or local law
regulation
Due
same sex marriages
currently recognize
performed
legally
under Oregon law
in
The Court
and
that
no
state
that
recognition
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
SW
1515
Portland
Phone
Fifth
OR
Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
FAX
971 673 1880
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
the contents conf
you have received
that
idential
this
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
971 673 5000
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
Department
and IRS
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
contents
Thank you
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton

Perkins
Coie
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 16 2014 2 23 23
Subject
RE
Attachments
Order edits
Thanks
somehow
language
wanted
From
Sent
To
the
to
keep
Lea Ann
Friday
Potter
Perkins
Joyce
Subject
Sorry
Lea
Lake
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
mary h
msn com
williams
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed
language
defs docx
during my conference
call
I would never
a document containing
our proposed version
gender
recognition
mailto LEaston
2014 1 21 PM
Jenny MADKOUR
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Anna
Mary
sex thing
piece
and
suggests
Our suggestions
that
com
jenny
some
but
This
magically
one accepts
slightly
are highlighted
altered
and
Jennifer
Diaz
kdiaz
mary h williams msn

CONFIDENTIAL
one
had
sent
Potter Sheila H
mailto sheila
Friday
May 16
2014 1 18 PM
Lea
Ann
Easton
Perriguey
Jenny MADKOUR
Tom
Johnson
justicelawyers
or org mailto
you send
From
aclu
Lake
Perriguey
Tom
Johnson
or org
com
proposed
language
out
kdiaz
aclu
potter
jenny
Perkins
doj state
or us
Coie
com mailto
Misha Isaak
JMiddleton
jenny
Perkins
justicelawyers
m morf multco us
Coie
Jennifer
com
Kevin
a redlined
Ann
Lea
Easton
Perriguey
JMiddleton
copy
so that
we
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
Joyce
Notice
kdiaz
Anna
RE
This
information
Johnson
justicelawyers
or org mailto
Subject
Tom
aclu
Mary
can
jenny
Perkins
see what
you ve
changed
kdiaz
aclu
Misha Isaak
JMiddleton
com
Thanks
com
Coie
com mailto
Perkins
justicelawyers
jenny
Coie
com
m morf multco us
Jennifer
Kevin
Middleton
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Williams
Geiger Rummell
communication
intended
Middleton
Diaz
or org
Sent
Friday
May 16
2014 12 50 PM
To
Potter Sheila H
Jenny MADKOUR
Cc
Middleton
Cc
Joyce Anna
Mary Williams
mary h williams msn com mailto mary h williams msn
Subject
RE
Geiger Rummell
CONFIDENTIAL
proposed language
Lake
in red
com
m morf multco us
Coie
Kevin
Williams
s the
dorsayindianlaw
Perkins
Geiger Rummell
thought
JMiddleton
Can
com
PM
for the
the
Middleton
Ann
From
Sent
To
Easton
May 16
Sheila
RE
to
multco us
Jennifer
your edits visible
Coie
JMiddleton
Cc
state
m morf
jenny
Coie
aclu or org
Geiger Rummell
edits except
with respect
Perkins
Mary Williams
Not that I am working

I have gotten hold of
almost all
MADKOUR
Jenny
Misha Isaak
mary h williams msn

CONFIDENTIAL
including
for a specific
com mailto
proposed
any attachments
individual
and
mary h williams msn
com
language
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
or confidential
by law
If
you
are not the intended recipient

and are hereby notified that any disclosure
copying or
distribution
of
this communication
or the
taking
of
any action
based
on it
is
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
contained
cannot be used
for the purpose
ii
promoting
marketing
we
inform you that
any U S
federal
tax advice

and
of
i
Code or
or recommending
to
another
party
any transaction
or matter
addressed
herein
Misha and I worked

clients
respective
on additional edits to the proposed order this morning on behalf of our

We are sending this out to the group for discussion and considersation
Lea
Ann
From
Potter
Sent
Thursday
Sheila
To
Jenny MADKOUR
Ann
Easton
Tom
JMiddleton
Joyce
Subject
mailto
2014
jenny
kdiaz
Anna
Perkins
aclu
Mary
potter
doj state
or us
Coie
jenny
Misha Isaak
com mailto
JMiddleton
m morf multco us
Perkins
Coie
justicelawyers
Lake
Jennifer
com
Perriguey
Lea
Middleton
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Williams
Geiger Rummell
mary h williams msn
CONFIDENTIAL
for people
Proposed language
sheila
5 04 PM
Johnson
justicelawyers
or org mailto
Cc
May 15
to
proposed
com mailto
mary h williams msn
com
language
toss around
and
work
Plaintiffs
Motions
from
ORDER
The
Court having
the
County
and
considered
parties in support
motions filed
of
Court finds that
the
benefits
sex couples
NOW
THEREFORE
there
is
48 and
responses
64
the
the
no legitimate state
privileges
solely on the
Court GRANTS
of
ECF Nos
their motions and
protections
same
in each
Responses
and
the
ECF Nos
arguments
Court GRANTS
the
23 and
made
42
by all
summary judgment
by Plaintiffs
The
The
the
Defendants
the
Motions
basis
Court hereby
Due
Process
and
that
and
DECLARES
Equal
as such
it
is
that
void
those
that
would
justify
responsibilities
couples
are composed
ECF Nos
23 and
of
42
of
the
denial
of
marriage to
filed
by the
plaintiffs
cases
Article 15
Protection
that
and
two consolidated
The
interest
obligations
and
clauses
section
of
the
unenforceable
ENJOINED
5A
of
the
Fourteenth
Defendants
from enforcing
Oregon
Constitution
Amendment to
and
the
U S
their officers
violates
the
Constitution
agents
Article 15
section
5A
of
the
041
ORS 106
150
violate
and
Oregon
Constitution
The
Court also DECLARES
Process
and
prohibit
couples
the
Equal
a person
the
couple
officers
any of
the
and
benefits
and
same
state
person
privileges
qualified
or local
sex couples
rights
another
ORS 106
benefits
of
the
and
same
obligations
to
law
otherwise
are unenforceable
qualified
to
only to
the
gender
or would
law
and
of
same
or to
Due
would
sex
marriage
and
basis
responsibilities
the
they
where
their
or applying
as the
marry in Oregon
that
deny
Defendants
from enforcing
or ordinance
obligations
extent
responsibilities
Oregon
ENJOINED
regulation
privileges
and
marry under
or any other
marriage to
010
Clauses
be otherwise
agents
statutes
ORS 106
from marrying
rights
would
that
Protection
to
those
deny
deny
those
that
accompany
couples
marriage in Oregon
The
Court finds that
performed
Oregon
in other
law
The
recognition
basis
and
to
deny
that
County
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
of
where
that
currently recognize
those
the
Due
or local
law
a same
Defendant
same
Process
and
regulation
Equal
that
other
respects
Protection
or ordinance
from denying

Clauses
can
amount
in another
valid
under
require
to
that
any valid
jurisdiction
recognition
Trial Counsel
of
Justice
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
971
information
applicable
that
keep
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Defendants
Potter
Portland
Phone
no state
recognition
the
Sheila
1515
State
Court DECLARES
and
ENJOINS
the
jurisdictions
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
ORDER
The Court
42

parties in
all
motions
filed
The Court
by
there
is
no legitimate
attendant rights
those couples are composed of
GRANTS
state interest
would
that
protections
benefits
justify
summary judgment
the
two men
or
and do
recognize same
in
all
the denial of the
full
obligations
privileges
solely
on the
basis that
two women
under Oregon Administrative Rule 105 010 0018
finds that
must
agencies
48 and 64
responsibilities
23 and
Plaintiffs
finds that
The Court
ECF Nos
Responses
support
ECF Nos
gender marriages
legally
Oregon executive
performed
in
other jurisdictions
NOW THEREFORE
GRANTS
The Court
plaintiffs
in
The Court
the
Due
the Motions for
ECF Nos
Summary Judgment
23 and 42
filed
by the
DECLARES
hereby
that
Article 15
Constitution
and
that
and employees are
as such
it
is
clauses
section
5A
of the Fourteenth
Amendment
to the
agents
5A
of the
Oregon Constitution
The Court
the
Due
also
DECLARES
that
ORS
106 010
ORS
106 041 1
and
ORS
106 150 1
violate
sex couples the right to marry and
obligations
privileges
otherwise
qualified
employees are
other
state
in
benefits
rule
qualified
privileges
regulation
benefits
agents
and
statutes
or any
or ordinance
to marry in Oregon
obligations
attendant rights
responsibilities
or local law
couples otherwise
rights
full
or to deny married same
responsibilities
and immunities
sex
sex couples any of the
that
accompany marriage
Oregon
The Court
DECLARES
marriages of same
are in
all
ordinance
validly
that
the
Due
sex couples legally performed
can amount to any valid
performed
in
basis
in
and
other jurisdictions
that
no
to deny recognition
To
state
where those marriages
or local law
of a same
of
rule
regulation
sex couple s marriage
the extent that any Defendant
or Defendant
or
officers
agents
and employees
PERMANENTLY
ENJOINS
This Order shall be effective
are not already recognizing
them from denying
that
immediately upon filing
those marriages
recognition
the Court
Potter
To
Mary Williams
jenny
Sheila
m morf
Johnson
kdiaz
mary h
Perkins Coie
PM
5 16 2014 3 21 39
Subject
Final edited
version
Attachments
Order edits
state
to
send
Did
miss anything
defs docx
msn com
Joyce Anna
Jenny
Jennifer
aclu or org
Sent
Okay
williams
multco us
Middleton
JMiddleton
MADKOUR
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Perkins
com
Coie Tom
Kevin
Diaz
From
ORDER
The Court
42
ECF Nos
Responses
the Defendants
of their motions and responses
support
by
ECF Nos
48 and 64
GRANTS
the Court
23 and
parties in
all
the
filed
Plaintiffs
The Court
finds that
there
attendant rights
state interest
would
that
protections
benefits
two men
or
and do
in
all
full
obligations
solely
on the
those
basis that
two women
recognize same
the denial of the
justify
privileges
under Oregon Administrative Rule 105
finds that
must
agencies
no legitimate
and immunities of marriage to same sex couples
responsibilities
The Court
is
010 0018
sex marriages legally performed
Oregon executive
in
other jurisdictions
NOW THEREFORE
GRANTS
The Court
plaintiffs
in
The Court
the
Due
the Motions for
ECF Nos
Summary Judgment
23 and 42
filed
by the
DECLARES
hereby
that
Article 15
Constitution
and
that
and employees are
as such
it
is
clauses
5A
section
of the Fourteenth
Amendment
to the
agents
5A
of the
Oregon Constitution
The Court
the
Due
also
DECLARES
ORS
that
106 010
ORS
106 041 1
ORS
and
106 150 1
violate
would prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same sex or would deny same sex
couples the right to marry and
obligations
full
qualified
local
law
rule
otherwise
benefits
responsibilities
regulation
qualified
privileges
or ordinance
to marry in Oregon
obligations
attendant rights
benefits
agents
statutes
and emp loyees are

or any other

or to deny
responsibilities
privileges
where the couple would be otherwise
married same
and immunities
state
or
sex couples
sex couples any of the rights

that
accompany marriage
in
Oregon
The Court
DECLARES
marriages of same
are in
all
ordinance
validly
and
that
the
Due
sex couples legally performed
can amount to any
performed
their officers
in
valid
basis
agents
in
and
that
no
to deny recognition
The Court
other jurisdictions
state
or local law
of a same
rule
that
recognition
regulation
sex couple s marriage
PERMANENTLY ENJOINS
of
where those marriages
Defendants
or
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
lake
rsaxe
jmiddleton
law works
aclu org
com
sberman
Sent
5 16 2014 3 23 46
Subject
RE
tomorrow
From
told
com
aclu
Subject
roger
Stay Pending
on
Appeal
the emergency
stay
and
anticipate
filing
it
later
today or
oppose
hbclawyers
com
2014 3 19 PM
jmiddleton
Lea Ann Easton
sberman
org
stollberne
are working
plaintiffs
doj state or us
law works
rsaxe
mailto
May 16
Friday
anna joyce
lake
him Geiger
Roger Harris
Sent
To
They
com jenny m madkour

multco us katevts
multco
us
com Potter Sheila H TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
com kdiaz
aclu or org mary h williams
msn com
perkinscoie
PM
Motion for Emergency
spoke with Roger Harris
just
justicelawyers
MIsaak
stollberne
justicelawyers
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
kdiaz
aclu or
com
com
jenny
sheila
madkour
potter
multco
us
doj state or us
katevts
multco
TRJohnson
us
perkinscoie
com
org
Stay Pending Appeal
Dear Counsel
NOM anticipates filing a Motion for Emergency

We will assume that all parties in the litigation
advise
me
otherwise
Please
call
if
Stay Pending
Appeal
object to or otherwise
Attorneys
Harris
and Counselors
T 503 968 1475

5000
SW
P C
F 503 968 2003
Meadows Road
Suite
D 503
596 2910
hbclawyers
400 Lake Oswego
OR
com
97035
Bio
vCard
Order Denying
Intervention
oppose such a motion unless you
Thank you
and consideration
Roger
of the
for your professional courtesies
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sheila
m morf
jenny
Jennifer
Mary Williams
multco us
Middleton
Sent
5 16 2014 3 25 33
Subject
RE
It
looks
good
to
Final edited
mary h
williams
msn com
Lake Perriguey Misha Isaak
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
Joyce Anna
Perkins Coie
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
Jenny
Tom
MADKOUR
Johnson
Perkins
Coie
aclu or org
PM
version
me
Thank you
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Sheila
May 16
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton

JMiddleton
Subject
Okay
williams
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Final edited
to send
Did
may
com
msn com
Coie
Tom
Kevin Diaz
Joyce Anna
Johnson
kdiaz
aclu
Jenny
Perkins
or
MADKOUR
Coie
jenny
Jennifer
morf
multco us
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
org
miss anything
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
Perkins
version
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 22 PM
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
CC
Potter
Sheila
m morf
jenny
JMiddleton
Mary Williams
multco us
justicelawyers
Sent
5 16 2014 3 26 25
Subject
Re
Good
to go
Final edited
mary h
Misha Isaak
com
williams
Tom
msn com
Johnson
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
Jennifer
Jenny
MADKOUR
Middleton
aclu or org
PM
version
Thank you
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On May
It
looks
16
2014
good
to
Civil
at
Justice
PM
3 25
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
me
Thank you
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Sheila
May 16
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton

JMiddleton
Subject
Okay
williams
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Final edited
to send
Did
may
com
msn com
Coie
Tom
Kevin Diaz
Joyce Anna
Johnson
kdiaz
Jenny
Perkins
aclu or
MADKOUR
Coie
jenny
Jennifer
morf
multco
us
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
org
miss anything
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
Perkins
version
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 22 PM
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Mary Williams
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Perkins Coie
JMiddleton
Joyce Anna
Tom
justicelawyers
Sent
5 16 2014 3 27 29
Subject
Re
Final edited
Jenny
Johnson
com
MADKOUR
jenny
Perkins Coie
Kevin Diaz
m morf
Jennifer
kdiaz
Lake Perriguey
Misha
multco us
Middleton
aclu or org
PM
version
And me
Sent from
On May
It
looks
my iPhone
16
2014
good
to
at
PM
3 25
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
me
Thank you
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Sheila
May 16
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton

JMiddleton
Subject
Okay
williams
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Final edited
to send
Did
may
com
msn com
Coie
Tom
Kevin Diaz
Joyce Anna
Johnson
kdiaz
Jenny
Perkins
aclu or
MADKOUR
Coie
jenny
Jennifer
morf
multco
us
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
org
miss anything
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
Perkins
version
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 22 PM
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
MADKOUR
From
Jenny
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Potter
jenny
Sheila
m morf
JMiddleton
Mary Williams
multco us
com
justicelawyers
Sent
5 16 2014 3 27 41
Subject
Re
Final edited
mary h
williams
Tom
Misha Isaak
Kevin Diaz
msn com
Johnson
kdiaz
Joyce Anna
Jennifer
Jenny
MADKOUR
Middleton
aclu or org
PM
version
Looks good
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
fax
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
May
Fri
Good
to go
Lake James
message
and
or the attachments
may
16 2014
at
3 26
PM
by
Lake Perriguey
reply email
lake
information
and
by
protected
then destroy
all
the attorney
copies of
law works com
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
received
this
Thank you
wrote
Thank you
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On May
It
16
2014
looks good to
Civil
at
Justice
PM
3 25
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
me
Thank you
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
Sheila
May 16
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton

JMiddleton
Subject
williams
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Final edited
potter
doj state or us
2014 3 22 PM
Perkins
com
version
msn com
Coie
Tom
Kevin Diaz
Joyce Anna
Johnson
kdiaz
Jenny
Perkins
aclu or
org
MADKOUR
Coie
jenny
Jennifer
morf
Middleton
multco
us
Lake Perriguey
Okay
to send
Did
miss anything
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Kevin Diaz
To
Potter
Sent
5 16 2014 3 30 31
Subject
RE
my
Including
From
Sent
To
Potter
Friday
colleagues
Sheila
May 16
JMiddleton
Subject
mailto sheila
Okay
justicelawyers
to send
Did
may
doj state or us
Perkins
com
msn com
Coie
Tom
Joyce Anna
Johnson
Jenny
Perkins
MADKOUR
Coie
jenny
Jennifer
morf
multco us
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
Kevin Diaz
version
miss anything
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
so give us a few minutes
potter
williams
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
PM
version
2014 3 22 PM
Misha Isaak
Final edited
Final edited
at national
Lea Ann Easton
Sheila
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Isaak
To
Jenny
CC
Potter
jenny
Misha
Perkins
m morf
JMiddleton
multco us
5 16 2014 3 32 25
com
Subject
RE
Final edited
msn com
williams
Thomas
Johnson
justicelawyers
Sent
Coie
MADKOUR Lake Perriguey

Sheila H Mary Williams mary
Kevin Diaz
Joyce Anna
Perkins Coie
Jr
kdiaz
Jenny
Jennifer
MADKOUR
Middleton
aclu or org
PM
version
agree
Misha Isaak
Coie LLP
Perkins
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
MADKOUR
Jenny
Sent
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Isaak
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco
us
2014 3 28 PM
May 16
Friday
Perriguey
Kevin Diaz
Subject
Sheila
Misha

Coie
Perkins
kdiaz
Re
aclu or
Final edited
Johnson
msn com
williams
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Joyce Anna
Coie
Jennifer
Jenny
MADKOUR
Middleton
jenny
JMiddleton
morf
multco us
justicelawyers
com
org
version
good
Looks
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
fax
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
May
Fri
Good
to go
Lake James
message
and
or the attachments
may
16 2014
at
3 26
PM
by
Lake Perriguey
reply email
lake
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
law works com
this
client
wrote
Thank you
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On May
It
16
2014
looks good to
Thank you
Lea Ann
Civil
at
me
Justice
3 25
PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
privilege
transmission
wrote
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
From
Potter
Sent
To
Friday
Sheila
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton

JMiddleton
Subject
Okay
williams
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Final edited
to send
Did
may
com
If
please advise
or written
or
MADKOUR
Coie
jenny
Jennifer
morf
multco
us
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
org
aclu or
is
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
kdiaz
Jenny
Perkins
otherwise
by Perkins
any transaction
advise
me
230 DISCLOSURE
may be imposed on
NOTICE
Johnson
NOTICE
party
Joyce Anna
IRS CIRCULAR
that
Kevin Diaz
e mail in error
intended
msn com
Coie
Tom
miss anything
applicable law
the message
Perkins
version
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 22 PM
May 16
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Kevin Diaz
To
Potter
CC
Amanda Goad
Sheila
mary h
Thomas
Perkins
agoad
williams
Coie
Jenny
5 16 2014 3 34 18
Subject
RE
From
To
Joyce Anna
Coie
Jennifer
MADKOUR
rsaxe
Jenny
aclu org
MADKOUR
Middleton
JMiddleton
Mary Williams
jenny
m morf
justicelawyers
multco us
com
Isaak
Johnson
Misha
Lake Perriguey
PM
version
me
Isaak
Sent
Final edited
Rose Saxe
aclu org
msn com
Perkins
Jr
Sent
Looks good to
Misha
Coie
Perkins
mailto
misaak
com
perkinscoie
2014 3 32 PM
May 16
Friday
MADKOUR
Lake Perriguey
H Mary Williams mary h williams msn com Joyce Anna Jenny MADKOUR
jenny m
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com Kevin Diaz
Jenny
Cc
Potter
Johnson
Sheila
Subject
RE
Final edited
morf
multco us
version
agree
Misha Isaak
Coie LLP
Perkins
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
MADKOUR
Jenny
Sent
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Isaak
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco
us
2014 3 28 PM
May 16
Friday
Perriguey
Kevin Diaz
Subject
Sheila
Misha
Mary Williams
Coie
Perkins
kdiaz
Re
aclu
williams
Thomas R
Jr
msn com
Perkins
Joyce Anna
Coie
Jennifer
Jenny
MADKOUR
Middleton
jenny
JMiddleton
m morf
multco
justicelawyers
us
com
org
or
Final edited
mary h
Johnson
version
good
Looks
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
May
Fri
Good
to go
Lake James
message
and
or the attachments
may
16 2014
at
3 26
PM
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
by
Lake Perriguey
Thank you
reply email
lake
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
law works com
this
wrote
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
On May
It
16
2014
at
PM
3 25
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
me
looks good to
Thank you
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
Friday
Sheila
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton

JMiddleton
Subject
Okay
williams
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Final edited
to send
Did
may
com
If
please advise
or written
or
MADKOUR
Coie
jenny
Jennifer
morf
multco
us
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
org
aclu or
is
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
kdiaz
Jenny
Perkins
otherwise
by Perkins
any transaction
advise
me
230 DISCLOSURE
may be imposed on
NOTICE
Johnson
NOTICE
party
Joyce Anna
IRS CIRCULAR
that
Kevin Diaz
e mail in error
intended
msn com
Coie
Tom
miss anything
applicable law
the message
Perkins
version
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 22 PM
May 16
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Tom
CC
Misha Isaak
Sent
5 16 2014 3 37 59
Subject
RE
Sheila
Johnson
Perkins Coie
Perkins
Isaak
Sent
Friday
To
Misha
Perkins
May 16
2014
Jenny MADKOUR
Lake
JMiddleton
com
justicelawyers
PM
Coie
Misha giving
as carefully
mailto
misaak
your team s answer

as they want to
perkinscoie
Don
want
to
hit
send
com
3 32 PM
Williams
Joyce Anna
Jenny MADKOUR
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
justicelawyers
RE
JMiddleton
Perriguey
Cc
Potter Sheila H
Mary
jenny m morf multco us
Subject
Middleton
version
Final edited
Tom and Jennifer

still
mulling
or is
before people have a chance to read it
From
Jennifer
Coie
Final edited
com
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org
version
agree
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
Perkins
727
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Friday
To
Cc
Anna
Misha
Perkins
Looks
Re
Coie
kdiaz
Williams
jenny
Johnson
aclu
multco us
mary h williams msn
com mailto
Thomas
com mailto
Jr
Perkins
JMiddleton
jenny
Coie
mary h williams msn
m morf multco us
Jennifer
justicelawyers
com
Middleton
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
501
Hawthorne
SE
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
988
503
version
988
sender
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
3377
NOTICE
This
the attorney
message and or the attachments

may contain confidential
information protected by
client privilege
If you have received this transmission in error
please notify
immediately
by reply email
and
then
destroy
all
copies
of
this transmission
you
Fri
May 16
works com
Good to go
Lake
Law
SW
2014
wrote
Thank
James H
Works
1906
at
3 26 PM
Lake
Perriguey
com mailto
lake
law
Street
28503
29 20227
1928
334
28503
29 20334
2340
www
law
works
Perriguey
Oregon 97205
227 1928 tel
www
law
LLC
Madison
503
lake
you
Portland
T
503
http
aclu
Madkour
Attorney
On
com
Isaak
or org
Final edited
County
the
Mary
m madkour
good
Jenny M
fax
3 28 PM
justicelawyers
or org mailto
Subject
jenny
2014
Jenny MADKOUR
JMiddleton
LLP
mailto
May 16
Lake Perriguey
Potter Sheila H
Joyce
Coie
2086
2340
law
works
tel
works
com k
com law
works
com
https
urldefense
3D
3D
proofpoint
com v1
url
u http
Thank
0A r
m aqSJywuZutWECgLc6UmZ
3D
2BuOdxVUFJzeXbQXNIoQqyG0
3D
0A
0A
s 668b937a3a1b3988ac8aaa97918f4c4d985807d3962c4a065f06e24e57a4bbc6
skype
OTLA
On
lagojaime
Guardian
May 16
LEaston
It
Lea
2014
good
3 25 PM
to
Potter
Friday
Mary
Easton
Sheila
Subject
mailto
2014
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Perkins
justicelawyers
kdiaz
aclu
Final edited
send
Did
under
or otherwise
attachments
CIRCULAR
Perkins
230
we
Coie
Tom
mary h williams msn
m morf multco us
Johnson
Perkins
JMiddleton
com
Lake
Coie
Jennifer
justicelawyers
Joyce
Perriguey
com
Anna
Lea
Jenny
Ann
Middleton
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
NOTICE
information
the
law
If
received
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
com mailto
jenny
miss anything
avoiding
or us
and
by
any
from your system
regulations
contained
doj state
or org
you have
keep
Coie
com mailto
applicable
that
reply e mail
potter
version
e mail may contain
disclosure
sheila
3 22 PM
mary h williams msn
CONFIDENTIALITY
have
Easton
LEaston
Misha Isaak
or org mailto
to
May 16
jenny
JMiddleton
IRS
Ann
me
Williams
MADKOUR
This
Lea
com mailto
Ann
From
Okay
at
Justice
you
Sent
To
Civil
dorsayindianlaw
looks
Thank
of
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Sent
5 16 2014 3 39 15
Subject
RE
We
re
good
all
Thanks
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Thomas
Final edited
Sheila
Perkins Coie
Jr
Jennifer
Middleton
JMiddleton
com
justicelawyers
Coie
PM
version
Now on
to the stay motion
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
perkinscoie
Potter
Sent
To
Johnson
Cc
Isaak
Tom
Thomas R
RE
and
mailto sheila
Jr
Final edited
Jennifer
Isaak
Sent
To
Cc
Middleton
Jennifer
JMiddleton
com
justicelawyers
mulling or
it
is
Misha giving your team
Don
answer
want to
hit send before people
as carefully as they want to
Coie
Perkins
mailto
misaak
com
perkinscoie
2014 3 32 PM
May 16
MADKOUR
Lake Perriguey
H Mary Williams mary h williams msn com
Joyce Anna Jenny MADKOUR
jenny m
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
Kevin Diaz
Jenny
Potter
Johnson
Subject
Coie
version
still
Misha
Friday
Perkins
Coie
Perkins
have a chance to read
From
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 38 PM
May 16
Misha
Subject
Sheila
Friday
com
Sheila
RE
Final edited
morf
multco
kdiaz
aclu
or
us
org
version
agree
Misha Isaak
Coie LLP
Perkins
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
MADKOUR
Jenny
Sent
May 16
Friday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Isaak
jenny
m madkour
multco
us
Perriguey
Sheila
Misha
Kevin Diaz
Subject
mailto
2014 3 28 PM
Mary Williams
Perkins
kdiaz
Re
Coie
aclu
or
Final edited
mary h
Johnson
williams
Thomas R
Jr
msn com
Perkins
Joyce Anna
Coie
Jennifer
Jenny
MADKOUR
Middleton
jenny
JMiddleton
m morf
multco
justicelawyers
us
com
org
version
good
Looks
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
message
and
or the attachments
may
information
protected
by
the attorney
client
privilege
If
you have
received
this
transmission
On
May
Fri
Good
to go
16 2014
at
PM
3 26
by
and
reply email
Lake Perriguey
then destroy
all
copies of
law works com
lake
Thank you
transmission
this
wrote
Thank you
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On May
It
16
2014
Civil
at
Justice
PM
3 25
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
me
looks good to
Thank you
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
Friday
Sheila
mailto sheila
Lea Ann Easton

JMiddleton
Subject
Okay
williams
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Final edited
to send
Did
may
com
If
please advise
or written
or
MADKOUR
Coie
jenny
Jennifer
morf
multco
us
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
org
aclu or
is
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
kdiaz
Jenny
Perkins
otherwise
by Perkins
any transaction
advise
me
230 DISCLOSURE
may be imposed on
NOTICE
Johnson
NOTICE
party
Joyce Anna
IRS CIRCULAR
that
Kevin Diaz
e mail in error
intended
msn com
Coie
Tom
miss anything
applicable law
the message
Perkins
version
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 22 PM
May 16
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Kevin Diaz
To
Potter
Sent
5 16 2014 3 39 49
Subject
RE
Amanda says
From
Sent
To
Potter
Subject
Including
Sent
To
May 16
Final edited
PM
version
Thanks
RE
Final edited
my
Potter
Friday
2014 3 31 PM
Sheila
version
colleagues
Sheila
May 16
at national
mailto sheila
JMiddleton
Subject
williams
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
Final edited
to send
Did
may
Perkins
com
msn com
Coie
Tom
Joyce Anna
Johnson
Jenny
Perkins
MADKOUR
Coie
jenny
Jennifer
morf
multco
us
Lake Perriguey
Middleton
Kevin Diaz
miss anything
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
doj state or us
potter
version
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
so give us a few minutes
2014 3 22 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Okay
Kevin Diaz
Friday
From
s a go
it
Sheila
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Thomas
Johnson
CC
Isaak
Sent
5 16 2014 3 39 59
Subject
RE
Thanks
And
Misha
Johnson
Sent
Friday
Thomas
May 16
Jr
2014
To
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
RE
re all
Thomas
1120
Couch
503
CELL
503
FAX
503
E MAIL
914
346
Potter
Friday
Subject
Tom
From
Cc
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
Sheila
Now
Coie
on to
the
stay motion
LLP
4128
2176
8918
Misha
2014
R
Perkins
Jennifer
still
sheila
potter
doj state
Coie
Jennifer
com
or us
3 38 PM
Jr
Perkins
com mailto
JMiddleton
Middleton
justicelawyers
com
Coie
Final edited
people
com mailto
mailto
May 16
Thomas
Isaak
Sent
To
mailto
version
justicelawyers
RE
and
before
Coie
Coie
Perkins
Sheila
Johnson
Isaak
com
2176
From
Cc
justicelawyers
PM
Perkins
JMiddleton
JMiddleton
Street
97209
727
Sent
To
Thanks
Johnson
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
PHONE
Middleton
3 39 PM
Jennifer
Final edited
good
N W
Jennifer
version
Final edited
Cc
We
Perkins Coie
Jr
Coie
yup
From
Subject
Perkins
version
mulling
have
a chance
Misha
Perkins
to
or is
read
Coie
it
Misha giving
your team
as carefully
as they
want
perkinscoie
com
mailto
misaak
s answer
Don
want
to
hit
send
to
Friday
May 16
2014 3 32 PM
Jenny MADKOUR
Lake Perriguey
Potter
Joyce
Anna
Thomas
Sheila
Jr
JMiddleton
Mary
Williams
Jenny MADKOUR
Perkins
jenny
Coie
justicelawyers
mary h williams msn
Jennifer
com mailto
com mailto
jenny
mary h williams msn
m morf multco us
com
Johnson
Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu

RE
Final edited version
Subject
I
agree
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Friday
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Coie
LLP
2086
May 16
mailto
jenny
2014
3 28 PM
m madkour
multco us
Perriguey
Sheila
Mary
Williams
mary h williams msn
com mailto
mary h williams msn
Joyce Anna
Jenny MADKOUR
jenny m morf multco us mailto jenny m morf multco us
Perkins Coie
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins Coie
Jennifer Middleton
Misha
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
or org mailto
Subject
Looks
aclu
Final edited
good
Jenny M
County
Re
kdiaz
Madkour
Attorney
com mailto
or org
version
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
Kevin
Diaz
com
Isaak
kdiaz
aclu
501
SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
988
503
NOTICE
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
3377
This
the
attorney
the
sender
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
may contain
you have
by reply email
and
received
then
confidential
information
this transmission in error
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
you
On
Fri
works
Good
to
Lake
Law
May 16
com
go
Thank
James H
Works
1906
SW
2014
at
3 26 PM
Lake
Perriguey
com mailto
lake
law
Perriguey
Madison
Street
Oregon
97205
503
227
1928
tel
28503
29 20227
1928
503
334
2340
tel
28503
29 20334
2340
www
0A r
works
you
www
law
LLC
Portland
http
lake
wrote
law
law
works
works
com law
com k
works
com
https
urldefense
3D
m aqSJywuZutWECgLc6UmZ
3D
2BuOdxVUFJzeXbQXNIoQqyG0
3D
proofpoint
com v1
url
u http
3D
0A
0A
s 668b937a3a1b3988ac8aaa97918f4c4d985807d3962c4a065f06e24e57a4bbc6
skype
OTLA
On
lagojaime
Guardian
May 16
LEaston
It
Lea
2014
good
Potter
Friday
Mary
MADKOUR
Easton
to
Sheila
Subject
to
mailto
May 16
jenny
2014
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Perkins
kdiaz
aclu
Final edited
Did
CONFIDENTIALITY
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
com mailto
jenny
Tom
mary h williams msn
m morf multco us
Johnson
Perkins
JMiddleton
Lake
Coie
com
Jennifer
justicelawyers
Joyce
Perriguey
com
Anna
Lea
Jenny
Ann
Middleton
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
miss anything
NOTICE
information
the
law
If
received
contents
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
regulations
contained
or us
or org
you have
keep
Coie
com mailto
applicable
that
doj state
version
e mail may contain
disclosure
potter
mary h williams msn
justicelawyers
send
sheila
3 22 PM
Misha Isaak
or org mailto
IRS
Lea
com mailto
me
Williams
JMiddleton
This
3 25 PM
Ann
From
Okay
at
Justice
you
Sent
To
Civil
dorsayindianlaw
looks
Thank
of
230
we
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
ensure
unless
compliance
expressly indicated
including
any attachments
otherwise
is
not
and
IRS
any federal
intended
tax advice
or written by
Perkins
Coie
avoiding
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
marketing
or any attachments
NOTICE
This
communication
received
message
and
it
cannot
or recommending
herein
have
and
be used
in error
any attachments
to
may contain
another
party
privileged
please advise
without
by the
taxpayer
the
copying
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
any transaction
or other
sender
the
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
contents
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Jennifer
To
Potter
Sent
5 16 2014 3 42 59
Subject
RE
It
Final edited
Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
541
Schaller
PC
1050
Ste
Street
OR 97401
Eugene
683 2506
jmiddleton
com
justicelawyers
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
This message
If
Potter
Tom
and
Sheila
sheila
Jennifer
From
Isaak
Sent
Misha
it
may
contain
please delete
is
communications
confidential
it
and
notify
protected
the sender
05 16 14 3 38 PM
doj state or us
potter
mulling or
still
have a chance to read
To
PM
version
good
all
Jennifer
Misha giving your team
Don
answer
want to
hit send before people
as carefully as they want to
Coie
Perkins
mailto
misaak
com
perkinscoie
May 16 2014 3 32 PM
Friday
MADKOUR
Lake Perriguey
H Mary Williams mary h williams msn com Joyce Anna Jenny MADKOUR
jenny m
Jennifer Middleton
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com Kevin Diaz
Jenny
Cc
Potter
Johnson
Subject
Middleton
Sheila
Sheila
RE
Final edited
morf
multco
kdiaz
aclu or
us
org
version
agree
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
MADKOUR
Jenny
Sent
To
Lake
Cc
Potter
Isaak
Sheila
kdiaz
Subject
Looks
jenny
m madkour
multco
us
Perriguey
Misha
Diaz
mailto
May 16 2014 3 28 PM
Friday
Perkins
aclu or
Re
Coie
Johnson
williams
Thomas R
Jr
msn com
Perkins
Joyce Anna
Coie
Jennifer
Jenny
MADKOUR
Middleton
jenny
JMiddleton
m morf
multco
justicelawyers
com
us
Kevin
org
Final edited
version
good
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
madkour
500
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
Suite
Oregon 97214
Fri
Good
May
to go
message
and
or the attachments
may
16 2014
at
Thank you
3 26
PM
by
Lake Perriguey
reply email
lake
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
law works com
this
wrote
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On May
It
16
2014
Civil
Justice
3 25
at
PM
Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
me
looks good to
Thank you
Lea Ann
From
Potter
Sent
To
Friday
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton

Kevin Diaz
Subject
Okay
williams
Misha Isaak
kdiaz
aclu
Final edited
to send
or
If
please advise
or written
privileged
MADKOUR
Coie
it
confidential
appears
morf
Middleton
multco us
JMiddleton
Lake Perriguey
justicelawyers
com
otherwise
you have received
ise that
the contents conf
or
may
Treasury Department
idential
contain
herein
or
Thank you
and IRS

matter addressed
This communication
with
this
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
regulations
including
for
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
contents
jenny
Jennifer
or otherwise
any transaction
advise
me
230 DISCLOSURE
may be imposed on
NOTICE
is
party
Jenny
Perkins
IRS CIRCULAR
that
Johnson
NOTICE
e mail in error
intended
Joyce Anna
miss anything
applicable law
the message
msn com
Coie
Tom
version
Did
may
Perkins
org
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
doj state or us
May 16 2014 3 22 PM
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments
without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
To
Charlene
CC
Mary Williams
jenny
Isaak
or
Sheila
Pew
ord uscourts gov
mary h
m morf
5 16 2014 3 43 04
Subject
Proposed
Ms Pew
Consistent
and
Mr
Middleton
gov
Rosenblum
Ellen
JMiddleton
com
justicelawyers
Jenny
MADKOUR
Perkins CoieMisha
Kevin
Diazkdiaz
aclu
PM
MC
6 13 cv 01834
language
Geiger et al v
Kitzhaber et al
Svelund
with the Court s request
following
Jennifer
ord uscourts
Joyce Anna
org
Sent
Dear
Svelund
msn com
Lea Ann Easton
multco us
Perkins Coie
David
williams
counsel have conferred
on the form of an order and
Our thanks to the Court
language for the Court s consideration
for givingus
jointly submit the
an opportunity to do
so
ORDER
Responses
Defendants
ECF Nos
motions and responses the Court
The Court
nds
aendant rights
recognition
no
that there is
Motions
Summary Judgment
48 and 64
GRANTS
for
all
protections
would
privileges
23and 42
by Plaintis
and equal
obligations
the
parties insupport of their
the
benets
ECF Nos
and immunities of
responsibilities
marriage to same sex couples solely on the basis that those couples are composed of two
men
or
two
women
The Court
nds
that
under Oregon Administrative Rule 105 010 0018 Oregon executive agencies must
and do recognize same sex marriages legally performed

all
wherethose marriages are
in
NOW
THEREFORE
The Court
GRANTS
of the consolidated
The Court hereby
the Motions for
it
is
DECLARES
that Article 15
clauses
PERMANENTLY
The Court
also
ENJOINED
DECLARES
and
Defendants
ORS
106 010
ORS
statutes
led
aendant rights
benets
agents
and employees are
their
ocers
agents
section
106 041 1
to the
5A
and
by the plaintis
in each
Constitution
Due
and
that as
and employees are
ORS
106 150 1
the
violate
Due
Process
privileges
qualied
obligations
right
responsibilities
PERMANENTLY
ENJOINED
regulation
or ordinance
rule
US
marriage where the couple would be otherwise
ocers
23 and 42
Amendment
Article 15
from marrying another person of the same sex

5A
of the Fourteenth
from enforcing
that
section
their
ECF Nos
cases

such
Summary Judgment
to marry and
full
and immunities of
Defendants and
from enforcing or
applying those
as the basisto deny marriage to
same sex couples otherwise qualied
benets
rights
The Court
privileges
DECLARES
to marry in Oregon
obligations
that the
Due
responsibilities
or to deny married same sex couples any of the
and immunities
of same sex couples legally performed in other jurisdictions

valid
under Oregon law and
valid basis to
The Court
that
deny recognition
PERMANENTLY
no
state or local
law
Sheila
ENJOINS
Defendants
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
immediately upon ling
Potter
Deputy Chief
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
marriage in Oregon
Clauses require recognition of marriages

regulation
or ordinance
in all other respects
can amount to any
of a same sex couple s marriage validly performed in

that recognition
This Order shall be eective
rule
that accompany
FAX 971 673 5000
and
their
ocers
agents
and employees fromdenying
David
Potter
CC
Joyce Anna
jenny
ord uscourts gov
Svelund
Sheila
kdiaz
multco us
aclu or org
Misha Isaak
Perkins
Sent
5 16 2014 3 50 07
Subject
Re
Thank you Ms
Potter
will
Proposed
make
Pew
Charlene
m morf
ord uscourts gov

Jennifer
Middleton
Rosenblum

Coie
Tom
Johnson
Ellen
JMiddleton
Jenny
MADKOUR
com
justicelawyers
Mary Williams
mary h
Diaz
From
To
Kevin
williams
msn
com
Perkins Coie
PM
MC Geiger et
6 13 cv 01834
language
al
Kitzhaber et al
sure this gets to Judge McShane
David
From
Potter Sheila
Charlene
Cc
Mary
Pew
sheila potter
doj state or us
Charlene Pew
ord uscourts gov
David
Svelund
ord uscourts gov
David
Svelund
ord uscourts gov
msn com
mary h williams
msn com
Joyce Anna
anna joyce
doj state or us
Rosenblum Ellen F
Ellen F Rosenblum
doj state or us
Jenny MADKOUR jenny m morf
multco us
jenny m morf
multco us
dorsayindianlaw com
Lake Perriguey
lake
law works com
Tom Johnson Perkins Coie
TRJohnson
perkinscoie com
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie
misaak
perkinscoie com
justicelawyers com
JMiddleton
justicelawyers com
Kevin Diaz kdiaz
aclu or org
kdiaz
aclu or org
To
ord uscourts gov
mary h
Williams
05 16 2014 03 43
Date
Subject
Dear
PM
6 13
Proposed language
Ms Pew
and
Mr
cv
01834
MC
Geiger
et al
Kitzhaber
et
al
Svelund
with the Court s request
Consistent
following
williams
counsel have conferred
language for the Court s consideration
on the form of an order and
Our thanks to the Court
for givingus
jointly submit the
an opportunity to do
so
ORDER

Defendants
Responses
ECF Nos
motions and responses the Court
The Court
recognition
nds
that there is
aendant rights
no
Motions
48 and 64
GRANTS
for
Summary Judgment

the
protections
all
privileges
would
23and 42
by Plaintis
obligations
the
parties insupport of their
benets
ECF Nos
responsibilities
marriage to same sex couples solely on the basis that those couples are composed of two
and equal
and immunities of
men
or
two
women
The Court
nds
that
under Oregon Administrative Rule 105 010 0018 Oregon executive agencies must
and do recognize same sex marriages legally performed

all
wherethose marriages are
in
NOW
THEREFORE
The Court
GRANTS
of the consolidated
the Motions for

cases
Summary Judgment
ECF Nos
23 and 42
led
by the plaintis
in each
The Court hereby
DECLARES

such
it
is
that Article 15
PERMANENTLY
The Court
ENJOINED
DECLARES
also
of the Fourteenth
clauses
and
Defendants
from enforcing
that
ORS
ORS
from marrying another person of the same sex
ocers
agents
and employees are
statutes
same sex couples otherwise qualied
benets
rights
privileges
DECLARES
The Court
that the
Due
qualied
obligations
ENJOINED
regulation
or ordinance
under Oregon law and
valid basis to
deny recognition
PERMANENTLY
The Court
that
responsibilities
106 150 1
state or local
the
violate
law
right
responsibilities
Due
Process
to marry and
full
and immunities of
Defendants and
from enforcing or
and immunities
no
that as
applying those
as the basisto deny marriage to
or to deny married same sex couples any of the
of same sex couples legally performed in other jurisdictions

valid
ORS
PERMANENTLY
rule
and
to marry in Oregon
obligations
and
Constitution
privileges
marriage where the couple would be otherwise

their
5A
US
Due
and employees are
agents
section
106 041 1
to the
benets
aendant rights
ocers
Article 15
106 010
Amendment
their
5A
section
rule
that accompany
marriage in Oregon
Clauses require recognition of marriages

regulation
or ordinance
in all other respects
can amount to any
of a same sex couple s marriage validly performed in

ENJOINS
Defendants
and
their
ocers
agents
and employees fromdenying
that recognition
This Order shall be eective
immediately upon ling
H Poer
Sheila
Deputy
Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of Jus ce

1515
SW
Portland
Phone
h Avenue
Fi
OR
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 18 2014 8 23 10
Subject
RE
Attachments
image001
Have
you seen
From
Lea
Sent
Friday
To
law
Easton
LEaston
May 16
2014
Anna
Stay Pending
have
com
MIsaak
not
dorsayindianlaw
com
3 23 PM
works
Appeal
jpg
this stay motion yet
Ann
Joyce
lake
AM
perkinscoie
com
com
jenny
Potter
m madkour
Sheila
rsaxe aclu org

sberman stollberne com
kdiaz aclu or org
Subject
RE
Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
I
just spoke
it
with Roger
later today
mailto
Roger Harris
Friday
May 16
2014
From
Sent
To
anna
katevts
sheila
joyce
lake
Motion
They
told
on the
com
Lea
TRJohnson
aclu
or org
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Ann
Easton
anticipates
Roger
filing
We
will
Harris
Logo
Attorneys
Color
vCard http
5000
filing
com
MIsaak
com
jenny
m madkour
perkinscoie
rsaxe aclu
multco us
com
org
a Motion
for Emergency
assume that
all
Stay
Pending
parties in the
and
call
if
of
the
object
you have
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
oppose
Thank
P C
Counselors
F 503 968 2003
D 503 596 2910
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com professionals roger k harris
www
hbclawyers
com vcard
Harris
400
Oswego
Roger
K VCFC
in 20Express
SW
Appeal
litigation
sig
503 968 1475

Bio http
www
Add
anticipate
oppose
Appeal
such a motion unless you advise me otherwise

Please
for your professional courtesies
and consideration
stay and
com
com
Counsel
Intervention
HBC
emergency
multco us
com
perkinscoie
kdiaz
katevts
perkinscoie
mary h williams msn
works
or us
com
are working
him Geiger plaintiffs
roger hbclawyers
3 19 PM
or us
law
doj state
stollberne
Subject
Dear
doj state
multco us
potter
sberman
NOM
Harris
or tomorrow
multco us
TRJohnson
Meadows
Road
Suite
Lake
OR
97035
com http
Users
Roger
www
hbclawyers
20Harris
com
Documents
you
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 18 2014 9 32 19
Subject
Re
No
have
not
am wondering
motion to
Lea
if
drafted
they
intervene
Suite
Easton
440
have
is
AM
Emergency
Stay Pending
barebones
to
opposition
wait til
interlocutory
Appeal
McShane
appeal
with holes
issues
so it
to
fill
his order
will
likely
in
though
be filed
because
appeal
tomorrow
at
of
12 02 pm
503
790
OR
2014
Lea
Sent
Friday
To
at
you seen
From
MIsaak
LEaston
May 16
2014
perkinscoie
just spoke
Harris
Roger
Sent
Friday
anna
2014
doj state
jenny
m madkour
multco us mailto
Lea
Easton
sheila
potter
TRJohnson
MIsaak
Subject
Dear
NOM
Motion
anticipates
roger
com
com mailto
Potter
Sheila
lake
law
works
com
com
com mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
stay and
anticipate
filing
com
on the
hbclawyers
emergency
oppose
com
3 19 PM
or us mailto
com mailto
anna
m madkour
multco us
aclu
doj state
or us
sheila
law
MIsaak
potter
works
com mailto
perkinscoie
doj state
perkinscoie
sberman
com
multco us
lake
com mailto
or us mailto
kdiaz
joyce
jenny
katevts
for Emergency
We
filing
will
a motion unless
lake
law
works
com
com
or us
com
stollberne
com mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
or org
Stay
Roger
HBC
Harris
Logo
Color
Attorneys
and
1475
503
968
hbclawyers
you advise
Pending
Appeal
Roger
20Harris
SW
for Emergency
all
me otherwise
courtesies
and
Stay
parties in the
Please
Pending
Appeal
litigation
call
if
of
object
you have
the
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
oppose
Thank
consideration
P C
sig
Counselors
F 503
com http
roger
a Motion
assume that
for your professional
5000
com
Counsel
Intervention
such
dorsayindianlaw
Appeal
are working
org
or org mailto
works
stollberne
Pending
rsaxe aclu
org mailto
aclu
Stay
TRJohnson
kdiaz
LEaston
or org
com mailto
rsaxe aclu
law
com
perkinscoie
doj state
perkinscoie
wrote
perkinscoie
sberman
They
told
multco us mailto
katevts
Ann
lake
mary h williams msn
Harris
mailto
May 16
joyce
aclu
for Emergency
or tomorrow
From
To
kdiaz
with Roger
later today
or us
multco us
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
com mailto
Motion
com mailto
com mailto
multco us
MIsaak
org
or org mailto
doj state
not
m madkour
rsaxe aclu
kdiaz
mary h williams msn
jenny
com mailto
org mailto
RE
have
joyce
dorsayindianlaw
katevts
com mailto
rsaxe aclu
Subject
anna
multco us mailto
aclu
Anna
3 23 PM
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
Joyce
Easton
Anna
m madkour
katevts
8 23 AM
Ann
Joyce
jenny
Columbia
97258
9060
May 18
Have
LLP
1 SW
Portland
it
for
Ann
Dorsay
On
ve
Motion
harris
968
www
2003
D 503
hbclawyers
com
vCard http
Documents
Meadows
Road
Add
Suite
www
596
2910
Bio http
hbclawyers
in 20Express
400
Lake
Oswego
www
com vcard
OR
97035
hbclawyers
Harris
Roger
com professionals
K VCFC
Users
you
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
NOTICE
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 18 2014 9 56 37
Subject
RE
Yeah
that
s the
after
they
do
Tomorrow
is
Lea
Sent
Sunday
Joyce
Subject
No
I
Ann
have
done
Hoping
like
to
be able
stay from going
to
file
into
something
as soon
as possible
effect
LEaston
May 18
2014
dorsayindianlaw
com
9 32 AM
Motion
not
for Emergency
ve
if
drafted
they
intervene
have
is
Stay
Pending
barebones
to
opposition
wait til
interlocutory
Appeal
McShane
appeal
with holes
issues
so it
to
fill
his order
will
likely
in
though
be filed
because
tomorrow
appeal
at
of
12 02 pm
Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
503
790
Have
LLP
1 SW
OR
2014
Lea
Sent
Friday
To
at
you seen
From
MIsaak
LEaston
May 16
2014
perkinscoie
just spoke
Harris
Roger
Sent
Friday
anna
2014
doj state
jenny
m madkour
multco us mailto
Lea
Easton
sheila
potter
TRJohnson
MIsaak
Subject
Dear
NOM
Motion
com
roger
com
com mailto
Potter
Sheila
lake
law
works
com
com
com mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
stay and
anticipate
filing
com
on the
hbclawyers
emergency
oppose
com
3 19 PM
or us mailto
com mailto
jenny
katevts
anna
m madkour
multco us
for Emergency
aclu
doj state
or us
sheila
law
MIsaak
potter
works
com mailto
perkinscoie
doj state
perkinscoie
sberman
com
multco us
lake
com mailto
or us mailto
kdiaz
joyce
lake
law
works
com
com
or us
com
stollberne
com mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
or org
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Counsel
anticipates
Intervention
such
dorsayindianlaw
Appeal
are working
org
or org mailto
works
stollberne
Pending
rsaxe aclu
org mailto
aclu
Stay
TRJohnson
kdiaz
LEaston
or org
com mailto
rsaxe aclu
law
com
perkinscoie
doj state
perkinscoie
wrote
perkinscoie
sberman
They
told
multco us mailto
katevts
Ann
lake
mary h williams msn
Harris
mailto
May 16
joyce
aclu
for Emergency
or tomorrow
From
To
kdiaz
with Roger
later today
or us
multco us
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
com mailto
Motion
com mailto
com mailto
multco us
MIsaak
org
or org mailto
doj state
not
m madkour
rsaxe aclu
kdiaz
mary h williams msn
jenny
com mailto
org mailto
RE
have
joyce
dorsayindianlaw
katevts
com mailto
rsaxe aclu
Subject
anna
multco us mailto
aclu
Anna
3 23 PM
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
Joyce
Easton
Anna
m madkour
katevts
8 23 AM
Ann
Joyce
jenny
Columbia
97258
9060
May 18
it
ve
Appeal
be insane
Easton
am wondering
On
to
an Idaho
Stay Pending
Anna
Re
motion to
Lea
thing
prevent
going
From
To
same
to
AM
We
filing
will
a motion unless
a Motion
assume that
you advise
for Emergency
all
Stay
parties in the
me otherwise
Please
Pending
Appeal
litigation
call
if
of
object
you have
the
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
oppose
Thank
you

Roger
HBC
Harris
Logo
Color
Attorneys
and
1475
503
968
hbclawyers
k
Roger
20Harris
Counselors
F 503
Documents
Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
context
968
www
under
or otherwise
attachments
D 503
com
keep
Add
Suite
www
596
2910
Bio http
hbclawyers
www
com vcard
hbclawyers
Harris
Roger
com professionals
K VCFC
Users
in 20Express
400
Lake
Oswego
OR
97035
NOTICE
e mail may contain
by reply e mail
2003
hbclawyers
vCard http
Meadows
from disclosure
consideration
P C
harris
SW
and
sig
com http
roger
5000
courtesies
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 18 2014 11 36 23
Subject
Re
It
going to be insane
is
Motion
am
AM
Emergency
for
going for walk
in
Stay Pending
woods
Appeal
today to get myself prepared
Lea Ann
Yeah
18
2014
that s
an Idaho
9 56
To
No
I
am
Hoping
to be able to
doj state or us
wrote
something as soon as possible
file
after
they do
to prevent
May
18
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 32
com
AM
Anna
Joyce
anna joyce
going to be insane
is
Sunday
Re
Subject
Anna
Joyce
stay from going into effect
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
the same thing I ve done
like
Tomorrow
at
have not
wondering
ve drafted barebones
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
will likely
it
til
be
with holes to
in
issues his order though because
tomorrow
filed
fill
On May
at
12 02
appeal of motion to intervene
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
OR
Portland
LLP
SW
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
2014
Have you
at
8 23
To
jenny
Friday
May
Anna
Joyce
MIsaak
sberman
perkinscoie
stollberne
mary h williams
Subject
just
com
RE
com
wrote
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
justicelawyers
mailto jenny
com
mailto jmiddleton
m madkour
multco us
law works com
lake
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
mailto mary h
com
williams
com
mailto lake
Potter Sheila
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
justicelawyers
multco us
com
kdiaz
rsaxe
law works com
H
aclu org
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
aclu or org
msn com
spoke with Roger Harris They are working on the emergency stay and anticipate
tomorrow
com
PM
mailto sberman
msn com
doj state or us
have not
mailto MIsaak
com
anna joyce
dorsayindianlaw
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
16 2014 3 23
multco us
multco us
katevts
LEaston
jmiddleton
m madkour
Anna
Joyce
seen this stay motion yet
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
told him Geiger plaintiffs
oppose
filing
it
later
today or
is
From Roger
Harris mailto roger
Sent
May
Friday
To anna
joyce
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
multco us
katevts
Easton
sheila
MIsaak
potter
perkinscoie
com
stollberne
Subject
com
law works com
perkinscoie
mailto lake
law works com
Lea Ann
com
doj state or us
mailto TRJohnson
mailto sberman
multco us
lake
mailto MIsaak
com
com
justicelawyers
m madkour
multco us
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
doj state or us
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jenny
doj state or us
TRJohnson
sberman
com
multco us
PM
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
m madkour
jenny
16 2014 3 19
com
hbclawyers
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
com
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu org
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
aclu or org
Dear Counsel
NOM
anticipates
assume
Please
that
call
if
Roger
HBC
all
filing
parties in
a Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Appeal of the Order

the litigation
Harris
Logo Color
Deny
ing Intervention
oppose such a motion unless you advise
Thank you for your professional courtesies and
me
We
will
otherwise
consideration
C
sig
Attorneys and Counselors
T
Bio
503 968 1475

http
Roger
5000
www
K VCFC
SW
F 503 968 2003
hbclawyers
Users Roger
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
503 596 2910
20Harris Documents
Suite 400
If
e mail in error
please advise
Add
Lake Oswego
com
http
vCard
http
hbclawyers
roger k harris
professionals
OR
in
www
www
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
com
vcard Harris
20Express
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
com
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Misha Isaak
Sent
5 19 2014 10 16 24
Subject
Questions
Maura
is
calling
validity
of
Jennifer
can
give
should be seeking
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
and
licenses
Sheila
from
Counsel
of
State
Tom
Johnson
Justice
Registrar
before
her legal advice
advice
Potter
Department
the
may issue
Trial Division
Oregon
Coie
AM
from Maura Roche
calling
that
Perkins
Thanks
Could
with requests
for legal advice
a stay might be entered

one
of
you call
Maura
if
one
please
is
You
about
the
entered
re the
ones
she
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
5 19 2014 10 17 11
Subject
RE
Yes
Sorry
didn
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
Perkins
727
about
Coie
Thomas
Perkins
Jr
Coie
AM
from Maura Roche
Questions
know
Coie
Johnson
this
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Monday
To
Isaak
Sheila
May
Misha
Questions
Maura
calling
is
of
Jennifer
can
and
give
should be seeking
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
sheila
Coie
Johnson
the
State
may issue
Thomas
or us
Jr
from
Registrar
before
her legal advice
advice
doj state
Perkins
Coie
Roche
calling
that
potter
10 16 AM
from Maura
licenses
t
mailto
2014
Perkins
Subject
validity
19
with requests
for legal advice
Could
one
of
you call
Maura
if
one
is
please
about
the
entered
You
re the
ones
she
Thanks
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
attachments
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
IRS
Justice
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
CC
Johnson
Sent
5 19 2014 10 29 03
Subject
Re
No
problem
And
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Questions
guessed
Coie
Thomas
Perkins Coie
Jr
AM
from Maura Roche
that
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
Yes
2014
Sorry
503
Justice
at
didn
Misha Isaak
PHONE
of
10 17 AM
t
know
Perkins
727
Isaak
about
Coie
Misha
Perkins
Coie
misaak
perkinscoie
com
wrote
this
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Monday
Sheila
May
mailto
19
2014
sheila
potter
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
Johnson
Subject
Questions from Maura Roche
Maura
is
calling
validity
of
Jennifer
can
and
licenses
t
give
should be seeking
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
calling
that
the
may issue
State
before
her legal advice
advice
doj state
or us
10 16 AM
from
Thomas
Jr
Registrar
Perkins
with requests
Could
one
of
you call
Maura
Coie
for legal advice

if
one
is
please
about
the
entered
You
re the
ones
she
Thanks
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
under
or otherwise
information
applicable
that
law
you have
CIRCULAR
230
DISCLOSURE
To
If
is
privileged
you are not
received
by reply e mail
keep the contents
from your system
attachments
IRS
that
confidential
addressee
confidential
ensure
the
and
compliance
immediately

Perkins
cannot
Coie
promoting
herein
NOTICE
have
LLP
be used
that
marketing
and
be used
or recommending
to
by the
taxpayer
another
please advise
delete
the
party
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
and
any
IRS
otherwise
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
Code
or
ii
addressed
or any attachments
This
received
message
to
penalties
appears
regulations
we inform you that
contained
avoiding
or otherwise
or it
and
communication
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
please advise
without
privileged
or other
the
by reply email
copying
sender
or disclosing
the
confidential
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 19 2014 10 59 54
Subject
RE
Potter
Sheila
AM
Stay Pending
Appeal
crossed
Fingers
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Yeah
RE Motion
that s
an Idaho
for
Emergency Stay Pending Appeal
am
file
after
they do
to prevent
18
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 32
com
AM
Anna
Re
Subject
May
Sunday
Joyce
to be able to
going to be insane
is
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
Hoping
like
Tomorrow
No
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
anna joyce
mailto
May 18 2014 9 57 AM
have not
wondering
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
will likely
it
til
be
with holes to
in
tomorrow
filed
fill
To
Joyce Anna
Sunday
at
12 02
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
LLP
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
Have you
2014
at
8 23
To
jenny
Friday
Joyce
May
Anna
m madkour
katevts
MIsaak
sberman
com
perkinscoie
stollberne
RE
com
wrote
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
PM
mailto jenny
com
mailto jmiddleton
m madkour
multco us
mailto mary h
com
williams
com
com
kdiaz
msn com
mailto lake
Potter Sheila
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
justicelawyers
multco us
law works com
lake
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
mailto sberman
msn com
doj state or us
have not
mailto MIsaak
com
anna joyce
justicelawyers
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
mary h williams
Subject
multco us
multco us
TRJohnson
LEaston
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
Anna
Joyce
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
rsaxe
law works com
H
aclu org
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
aclu or org
is
just
tomorrow
From Roger
Harris mailto roger
Sent
May
Friday
To anna
joyce
jmiddleton
justicelawyers
m madkour
jenny
Easton
MIsaak
potter
sberman
perkinscoie
com
stollberne
Subject
com
multco us
multco us
law works com
lake
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
mailto lake
law works com
Lea Ann
com
doj state or us
mailto TRJohnson
mailto sberman
com
justicelawyers
m madkour
com
today or
doj state or us
mailto jmiddleton
mailto katevts
doj state or us
TRJohnson
later
PM
mailto jenny
perkinscoie
it
com
hbclawyers
mailto anna joyce
com
multco us
multco us
katevts
sheila
16 2014 3 19
doj state or us
filing
oppose
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
com
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu org
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
aclu or org
Dear Counsel
NOM
anticipates
assume
Please
that
call
if
Roger
HBC
all
filing
parties in

the litigation
Harris
Logo Color
Deny
ing Intervention
me
We
will
otherwise
consideration
C
sig
T
Bio
503 968 1475

http
Roger
5000
www
K VCFC
SW
F 503 968 2003
hbclawyers
Users Roger
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
503 596 2910
20Harris Documents
Suite 400
If
e mail in error
please advise
Add
Lake Oswego
com
http
vCard
http
hbclawyers
roger k harris
professionals
OR
in
www
www
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
com
vcard Harris
20Express
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
com
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 19 2014 11 00 30
Subject
RE
Yes indeed
ve
got
Sheila
Potter
everything
AM
Stay Pending
crossed
that
Appeal
can
be
and
am occasionally
forgetting
to
breathe
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Ann
Joyce
Subject
Lea
mailto
2014
Anna
RE
Fingers
Easton
May
Potter
Motion
dorsayindianlaw
com
Sheila
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Ann
Joyce
Sent
Sunday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Anna
Motion
that
s the
they
do
is
Lea
Sent
Sunday
Ann
Joyce
Subject
No
thing
prevent
to
ve
Stay
or us
Pending
done
an Idaho
Hoping
like
Appeal
to
be able
stay from going
to
file
into
something
as soon
as possible
effect
be insane
Easton
LEaston
May 18
2014
have
Motion
not
am wondering
Lea
doj state
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
9 32 AM
Anna
Re
motion to
joyce
9 57 AM
for Emergency
same
to
going
From
To
anna
2014
Easton
after
Tomorrow
mailto
May 18
Yeah
for Emergency
ve
if
drafted
they
intervene
have
is
Stay
Pending
barebones
to
opposition
wait til
interlocutory
Appeal
McShane
appeal
with holes
issues
so it
to
fill
his order
will
likely
in
though
be filed
because
appeal
tomorrow
at
of
12 02 pm
Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
503
On
LEaston
11 00 AM
crossed
From
19
790
OR
Have
From
Lea
Sent
Easton
LEaston
Friday
May 16
Anna
mailto
katevts
com
2014
com
have
mailto
lake
law
mailto
works
com mailto
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
sberman
stollberne
com mailto
or us
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
perkinscoie
mailto
com mailto
com
com 3e
lake
perkinscoie
Potter
TRJohnson
com 3e
Sheila
law
com
mailto
lake
works
mailto
jenny
katevts
law
works
com
com 3e
m madkour
com mailto
lake
law
com 3e
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
com
org mailto
mailto
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
org
org 3e
stollberne
multco us
multco us
perkinscoie
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
sberman
multco us
multco us mailto
multco us 3e
mailto
m madkour
katevts
MIsaak
com mailto
TRJohnson
com mailto
LEaston
katevts
com
com 3e
mailto
doj state
not
mailto
jenny
multco us 3e
multco us
joyce
3 23 PM
multco us mailto
m madkour
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
anna
wrote
mailto
MIsaak
Anna
dorsayindianlaw
jenny
mailto
Joyce
or us 3e
dorsayindianlaw
m madkour
MIsaak
8 23 AM
doj state
Ann
mailto
works
at
joyce
LEaston
Joyce
mailto
jenny
2014
anna
you seen
mailto
To
Columbia
97258
9060
May 18
mailto
LLP
1 SW
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
com
mailto
sberman
mailto
kdiaz
stollberne
aclu
mary h williams msn

mailto
RE
just spoke
Harris
Roger
Sent
Friday
To
anna
joyce
anna
mailto
mailto
jenny
mailto
katevts
works
com
MIsaak
lake
perkinscoie
mailto
sheila
MIsaak
potter
mailto
TRJohnson
works
com mailto
doj state
sheila
potter
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
sberman
stollberne
com mailto
mailto
kdiaz
Subject
Dear
NOM
aclu
mailto
emergency
stay and
anticipate
filing
oppose
doj state
joyce
or us
doj state
or us 3e
com
m madkour
multco us
mailto
multco us mailto
multco us 3e
lake
perkinscoie
law
lake
works
com
TRJohnson
mailto
com 3e
jenny
katevts
law
m madkour
com mailto
Lea
MIsaak
multco us
multco us
works
com 3e
rsaxe aclu
kdiaz
Stay
potter
perkinscoie
Ann
lake
law
Easton
perkinscoie
com
or us
doj state
com
mailto
org mailto
or us 3e
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
org 3e
stollberne
kdiaz
mailto
doj state
sheila
rsaxe aclu
sberman
com 3e
potter
mailto
com 3e
mailto
or org
sheila
or us
for Emergency
anticipates
We
filing
will
a motion unless
Roger
HBC
Harris
Logo
Color
Attorneys
and
1475
503
968
http
www
http
www
vCard http
aclu
aclu
com
mailto
or org mailto
sberman
kdiaz
stollberne
aclu
com
or org
or org 3e
Pending
Appeal
5000
SW
you advise
and
2003
com
3e
F 503
hbclawyers
com professionals
www
hbclawyers
http
Road
under
or otherwise
keep
D 503
596
2910
Bio http
com vcard
www
in 20Express
Meadows
by reply e mail
Appeal
litigation
call
if
of
the
object
you have
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
oppose
Thank
you
consideration
968
Add
Please
Pending
P C
www
roger
harris
Roger
K VCFC
com vcard
Harris
Harris
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com http
www
hbclawyers
com professionals
roger
com
harris
3e
Users
Roger
Roger
20Harris
K VCFC
Users
Documents
Roger
20Harris
3e
Suite
400
Lake
Oswego
OR
97035
NOTICE
e mail may contain
attachments
me otherwise
courtesies
Stay
parties in the
hbclawyers
from disclosure
context
all
sig
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
for Emergency
Counselors
in 20Express
Documents
a Motion
assume that
Add
com
Counsel
Intervention
such
on the
joyce
anna
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
stollberne
Motion
anna
katevts
com
com mailto
TRJohnson
sberman
mary h williams msn
com
katevts
or us mailto
mailto
mailto
or org
com 3e
doj state
perkinscoie
com
jenny
mailto
perkinscoie
mailto
multco us 3e
law
aclu
Appeal
are working
mailto
com mailto
multco us
Pending
hbclawyers
or us
multco us mailto
mailto
com
or us mailto
doj state
m madkour
kdiaz
3 19 PM
m madkour
Stay
They
told
roger
2014
jenny
doj state
joyce
or org mailto
or org 3e
mary h williams msn
Harris
mailto
May 16
aclu
aclu
com 3e
or tomorrow
From
kdiaz
for Emergency
with Roger
later today
mailto
com mailto
Motion
kdiaz
mailto
mary h williams msn
Subject
it
com 3e
or org
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
CC
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 11 10 06
Subject
Re
9th circuit
denied
Sheila
Motion
AM
Emergency
for
Stay Pending
Appeal
it
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
Yes indeed
From
Sent
To
at
11 00
Anna
Joyce
ve got everything crossed
Lea Ann Easton
mailto
LEaston
anna joyce
that can
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
be and
wrote
am occasionally
forgetting to breathe
com
May 19 2014 11 00 AM
Monday
Joyce Anna
Subject
AM
Potter
RE Motion
Sheila
for
crossed
Fingers
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Yeah
RE Motion
that s
an Idaho
for
Subject
am
to be able to
file
May
Re
18
wondering
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 32
com
AM
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
it
will likely
til
be
filed
with holes to
in
tomorrow
at
12 02
pm
Lea Ann
Portland
Easton
1
LLP
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
to prevent
Suite 440
they do
Anna
have not
Dorsay
after
going to be insane
is
Sunday
Joyce
Hoping
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
like
Tomorrow
No
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
anna joyce
mailto
May 18 2014 9 57 AM
fill
To
Joyce Anna
Sunday
18
2014
at
8 23
AM
Joyce
Anna
anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
is
Have you
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
To
May
Friday
Anna
Joyce
multco us
multco us
katevts
MIsaak
sberman
RE
Subject
mailto jenny
com
Potter Sheila
perkinscoie
com
stollberne
mailto lake
com
rsaxe
kdiaz
law works com
H
aclu org
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
Harris mailto roger
Sent
May
Friday
To anna
joyce
jmiddleton
16 2014 3 19
justicelawyers
MIsaak
potter
perkinscoie
com
stollberne
Subject
later
today or
PM
doj state or us
mailto jmiddleton
com
multco us
multco us
law works com
lake
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
mailto lake
law works com
Lea Ann
com
doj state or us
mailto TRJohnson
mailto sberman
com
justicelawyers
m madkour
com
it
com
hbclawyers
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
filing
oppose
mailto jenny
doj state or us
TRJohnson
sberman
com
multco us
multco us
Easton
aclu or org
msn com
williams
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
m madkour
katevts
aclu org
From Roger
sheila
multco us
perkinscoie
mailto mary h
com
justicelawyers
law works com
lake
mailto TRJohnson
com
dorsayindianlaw
just
tomorrow
jenny
mailto LEaston
mailto jmiddleton
m madkour
mailto sberman
msn com
com
multco us
mailto MIsaak
com
com
stollberne
mary h williams
com
perkinscoie
com
PM
justicelawyers
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
have not
dorsayindianlaw
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
m madkour
jenny
LEaston
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
com
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu org
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
aclu or org
Dear Counsel
NOM
anticipates
assume
Please
that
call
if
Roger
HBC
all
filing
parties in

the litigation
Harris
Logo Color
Deny
ing Intervention
me
We
will
otherwise
consideration
C
sig
T
Bio
503 968 1475

http
Roger
5000
www
K VCFC
SW
F 503 968 2003
hbclawyers
Users Roger
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
503 596 2910
20Harris Documents
Suite 400
If
e mail in error
please advise
Add
Lake Oswego
com
http
vCard
http
hbclawyers
roger k harris
professionals
OR
in
www
www
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
com
vcard Harris
20Express
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
com
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 11 11 05
Subject
RE
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
Easton
mailto
2014
Sheila
Re
circuit
Lea
Ann
May 19
anna
AM
May
19
LEaston
Stay Pending
Appeal
dorsayindianlaw
com
11 10 AM
Anna
9th
On
Sheila
Motion
denied
2014
joyce
for Emergency
at
ve
Pending
Appeal
it
11 00 AM
doj state
Yes indeed
Stay
Joyce
or us mailto
got
everything
Anna
anna
joyce
crossed
doj state
that
can
be
or us
and
wrote
am occasionally
forgetting
to
breathe
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann
Monday
Joyce
Subject
Lea
Anna
RE
Fingers
Easton
May 19
Potter
Motion
Joyce
Sunday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Anna
s the
they
do
Tomorrow
is
Lea
Sent
Sunday
Ann
Joyce
Appeal
joyce
doj state
or us
9 57 AM
for Emergency
thing
prevent
to
ve
Stay
Pending
done
an Idaho
Hoping
like
Appeal
to
be able
stay from going
to
into
file
something
have
LEaston
May 18
2014
Suite
Motion
not
dorsayindianlaw
for Emergency
ve
if
drafted
they
intervene
Easton
440
Portland
790
Have
1 SW
OR
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
is
have
Stay
Pending
com
barebones
to
opposition
wait til
interlocutory
Appeal
McShane
appeal
with holes
issues
so it
to
fill
his order
will
likely
though
LLP
Columbia
97258
2014
anna
at
joyce
you seen
8 23 AM
doj state
Joyce
Anna
or us 3e
anna
wrote
I
have
not
joyce
doj state
in
be filed
9060
May 18
mailto
as possible
9 32 AM
Ann
Dorsay
as soon
effect
be insane
Easton
am wondering
On
Pending
Anna
Re
motion to
anna
2014
same
to
going
From
Subject
mailto
Motion
that
503
Stay
Easton
after
Lea
for Emergency
May 18
Yeah
com
Ann
Sent
No
Sheila
dorsayindianlaw
crossed
From
To
mailto LEaston
2014 11 00 AM
or us
because
tomorrow
appeal
at
of
12 02 pm
From
Lea
mailto
Sent
To
Ann
jenny
Friday
May 16
Anna
m madkour
jenny
mailto
katevts
com
MIsaak
lake
works
com mailto
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
sberman
stollberne
com mailto
mailto
kdiaz
perkinscoie
aclu
Subject
I
it
RE
Motion
just spoke
Harris
Roger
Sent
Friday
To
anna
mailto
joyce
anna
mailto
mailto
jenny
mailto
katevts
works
com
MIsaak
lake
perkinscoie
mailto
sheila
MIsaak
potter
mailto
TRJohnson
works
com mailto
doj state
sheila
potter
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
sberman
stollberne
com mailto
mailto
kdiaz
Subject
Dear
NOM
aclu
anticipates
Roger
HBC
We
filing
will
anna
mailto
com
sberman
kdiaz
mailto
on the
joyce
anna
perkinscoie
com
org
stollberne
aclu
com
or org
mary h williams msn
com
emergency
stay and
anticipate
filing
oppose
doj state
joyce
or us
doj state
or us 3e
com
multco us
mailto
multco us mailto
multco us 3e
mailto
lake
perkinscoie
sheila
law
lake
works
com
mailto
com 3e
jenny
katevts
law
m madkour
com mailto
Lea
MIsaak
multco us
multco us
works
com 3e
rsaxe aclu
mailto
kdiaz
potter
perkinscoie
Ann
lake
law
Easton
perkinscoie
com
or us
doj state
com
mailto
org mailto
or us 3e
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
org 3e
stollberne
kdiaz
Stay
doj state
sheila
rsaxe aclu
sberman
com 3e
potter
mailto
TRJohnson
Harris
Logo
Color
you advise
aclu
aclu
Pending
com
mailto
or org mailto
sberman
kdiaz
stollberne
aclu
com
or org
or org 3e
Appeal
1475
www
hbclawyers
SW
F 503
roger
www
Add
Please
Pending
Appeal
litigation
call
if
of
the
object
you have
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
oppose
Thank
you
consideration
Counselors
in 20Express
Documents
and
Stay
parties in the
P C
and
vCard http
all
sig
968
professionals
for Emergency
me otherwise
courtesies
503
a Motion
assume that
Attorneys
5000
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
Appeal
m madkour
com 3e
mailto
or org
Add
com
com
mailto
or us
for Emergency
a motion unless
http
perkinscoie
Counsel
Intervention
such
com
Pending
katevts
MIsaak
perkinscoie
stollberne
Motion
law
or org 3e
katevts
com
com mailto
TRJohnson
sberman
com
or us mailto
mailto
mailto
lake
com 3e
doj state
perkinscoie
mailto
jenny
mailto
perkinscoie
com
or org mailto
are working
multco us 3e
law
aclu
mailto
com mailto
multco us
com mailto
org 3e
hbclawyers
or us
multco us mailto
mailto
works
MIsaak
org mailto
or us mailto
doj state
m madkour
multco us
3 19 PM
m madkour
law
m madkour
multco us
com 3e
mailto
perkinscoie
aclu
Stay
They
told
roger
2014
jenny
doj state
joyce
jenny
katevts
mary h williams msn
Harris
mailto
May 16
lake
com
com 3e
com 3e
or tomorrow
From
kdiaz
mailto
works
com
stollberne
kdiaz
for Emergency
with Roger
later today
law
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
mailto
lake
Sheila
TRJohnson
sberman
com mailto
multco us
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
Potter
com 3e
mary h williams msn
com
com 3e
multco us 3e
mailto
com 3e
mailto
or org
mary h williams msn
dorsayindianlaw
m madkour
katevts
MIsaak
com mailto
TRJohnson
stollberne
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
katevts
com
com 3e
mailto
sberman
com mailto
LEaston
mailto
jenny
mailto
law
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
multco us 3e
multco us
mailto
mailto
mailto
3 23 PM
multco us mailto
m madkour
MIsaak
TRJohnson
mailto
com
perkinscoie
mailto
2014
dorsayindianlaw
mailto
works
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
Joyce
mailto
Easton
LEaston
968
com
Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
www
http
com vcard
www
in 20Express
Meadows
D 503
http
harris
hbclawyers
http
2003
596
2910
hbclawyers
www
hbclawyers
Harris
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com
3e
com professionals
Roger
K VCFC
com vcard
Harris
3e
Suite
NOTICE
400
Lake
Oswego
OR
com http
Bio http
97035
Users
Roger
Roger
K VCFC
hbclawyers
www
roger
20Harris
Users
com
hbclawyers
harris
com
3e
Documents
Roger
20Harris
This
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
CC
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 11 19 23
Subject
Re
And my staff
Sheila
Motion
H
AM
Emergency
for
Stay Pending
Appeal
our opposition
just filed
Lea Ann
On May
From
Sent
19
2014
at
11 11
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Re
9th circuit
mailto
Joyce
LEaston
Anna
anna joyce
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
wrote
com
May 19 2014 11 10 AM
Monday
Subject
AM
denied
Stay Pending Appeal
it
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
Yes indeed
From
Sent
To
at
11 00
Joyce
Anna
Lea Ann Easton
mailto
LEaston
anna joyce
that can
dorsayindianlaw
be and
am occasionally
com
May 19 2014 11 00 AM
Monday
Joyce Anna
Subject
AM
Potter
RE Motion
Sheila
for
crossed
Fingers
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Joyce Anna
mailto
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Yeah
RE Motion
that s
an Idaho
for
is
Sunday
Joyce
Subject
Hoping
to be able to
going to be insane
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
like
Tomorrow
To
anna joyce
May 18 2014 9 57 AM
Sunday
May
18
LEaston
2014 9 32
dorsayindianlaw
com
AM
Anna
Re
file
after
they do
to prevent
have not
am
wondering
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
will likely
it
til
be
with holes to
in
tomorrow
filed
fill
No
at
12 02
is
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
OR
Portland
LLP
SW
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
2014
Have you
at
8 23
To
jenny
May
Friday
Anna
Joyce
multco us
multco us
katevts
MIsaak
sberman
perkinscoie
RE
Subject
just
justicelawyers
multco us
mailto LEaston
mailto jmiddleton
dorsayindianlaw
law works com
lake
mailto mary h
com
com
mailto lake
Potter Sheila
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
justicelawyers
com
rsaxe
kdiaz
law works com
H
aclu org
aclu or org
Harris mailto roger
Sent
May
Friday
To anna
joyce
jmiddleton
16 2014 3 19
MIsaak
potter
TRJohnson
sberman
perkinscoie
doj state or us
perkinscoie
com
com
filing
it
later
today or
oppose
hbclawyers
com
PM
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jenny
com
lake
mailto MIsaak

mailto TRJohnson
mailto sberman
doj state or us
com
justicelawyers
m madkour
multco us
mailto katevts
stollberne
Subject
com
multco us
multco us
Easton
aclu org
aclu or org
msn com
williams
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
justicelawyers
m madkour
katevts
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
com
multco us
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
From Roger
sheila
wrote
tomorrow
jenny
com
m madkour
mailto sberman
msn com
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto jenny
com
doj state or us
have not
mailto MIsaak
com
stollberne
mary h williams
com
anna joyce
PM
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
LEaston
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
m madkour
Anna
Joyce
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
multco us
law works com
perkinscoie
mailto lake
law works com
Lea Ann
com
doj state or us
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
com
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu org
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
aclu or org
Dear Counsel
NOM
assume
Please
anticipates
that
call
Roger
HBC
if
all
filing
parties in

the litigation
Harris
Logo Color
Deny
ing Intervention
consideration
C
sig
503 968 1475
F 503 968 2003
503 596 2910
hbclawyers
com
http
www
hbclawyers
com
me
We
will
otherwise
Bio
http
Roger
5000
www
K VCFC
SW
hbclawyers
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
If
e mail in error
please advise
roger k harris
professionals
20Harris Documents
Suite 400
Add
Lake Oswego
OR
in
vCard
http
www
hbclawyers
com
vcard Harris
20Express
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
com
Users Roger
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
CC
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 11 51 15
Subject
Re
Will they
Sheila
Motion
H
AM
Emergency
for
Stay Pending
Appeal
with Supreme Court
file
Lea Ann
On May
From
Sent
19
2014
at
11 11
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Re
9th circuit
mailto
Joyce
LEaston
Anna
anna joyce
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
wrote
com
May 19 2014 11 10 AM
Monday
Subject
AM
denied
Stay Pending Appeal
it
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
Yes indeed
From
Sent
To
at
11 00
Joyce
Anna
Lea Ann Easton
mailto
LEaston
anna joyce
that can
dorsayindianlaw
be and
am occasionally
com
May 19 2014 11 00 AM
Monday
Joyce Anna
Subject
AM
Potter
RE Motion
Sheila
for
crossed
Fingers
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Joyce Anna
mailto
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Yeah
RE Motion
that s
an Idaho
for
is
Sunday
Joyce
Subject
Hoping
to be able to
going to be insane
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
like
Tomorrow
To
anna joyce
May 18 2014 9 57 AM
Sunday
May
18
LEaston
2014 9 32
dorsayindianlaw
com
AM
Anna
Re
file
after
they do
to prevent
have not
am
wondering
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
will likely
it
til
be
with holes to
in
tomorrow
filed
fill
No
at
12 02
is
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
OR
Portland
LLP
SW
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
2014
Have you
at
8 23
To
jenny
May
Friday
Anna
Joyce
multco us
multco us
katevts
MIsaak
sberman
perkinscoie
RE
Subject
just
justicelawyers
multco us
mailto LEaston
mailto jmiddleton
dorsayindianlaw
law works com
lake
mailto mary h
com
com
mailto lake
Potter Sheila
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
justicelawyers
com
rsaxe
kdiaz
law works com
H
aclu org
aclu or org
Harris mailto roger
Sent
May
Friday
To anna
joyce
jmiddleton
16 2014 3 19
MIsaak
potter
TRJohnson
sberman
perkinscoie
doj state or us
perkinscoie
com
com
filing
it
later
today or
oppose
hbclawyers
com
PM
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jenny
com
lake
mailto MIsaak

mailto TRJohnson
mailto sberman
doj state or us
com
justicelawyers
m madkour
multco us
mailto katevts
stollberne
Subject
com
multco us
multco us
Easton
aclu org
aclu or org
msn com
williams
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
justicelawyers
m madkour
katevts
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
com
multco us
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
From Roger
sheila
wrote
tomorrow
jenny
com
m madkour
mailto sberman
msn com
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto jenny
com
doj state or us
have not
mailto MIsaak
com
stollberne
mary h williams
com
anna joyce
PM
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
LEaston
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
m madkour
Anna
Joyce
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
multco us
law works com
perkinscoie
mailto lake
law works com
Lea Ann
com
doj state or us
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
com
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu org
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
aclu or org
Dear Counsel
NOM
assume
Please
anticipates
that
call
Roger
HBC
if
all
filing
parties in

the litigation
Harris
Logo Color
Deny
ing Intervention
consideration
C
sig
503 968 1475
F 503 968 2003
503 596 2910
hbclawyers
com
http
www
hbclawyers
com
me
We
will
otherwise
Bio
http
Roger
5000
www
K VCFC
SW
hbclawyers
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
If
e mail in error
please advise
roger k harris
professionals
20Harris Documents
Suite 400
Add
Lake Oswego
OR
in
vCard
http
www
hbclawyers
com
vcard Harris
20Express
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
com
Users Roger
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 11 54 17
Subject
RE
Seems
likely
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
Will
Lea
On
Easton
mailto
2014
LEaston
Stay Pending
Appeal
dorsayindianlaw
com
11 51 AM
Sheila
Re
Motion
file
for Emergency
with Supreme
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Court
Ann
May 19
From
2014
joyce
Lea
at
11 11 AM
doj state
Ann
19
Cc
Potter
Subject
Sheila
Re
9th
circuit
Lea
Ann
May 19
anna
Motion
denied
2014
joyce
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Fingers
Lea
2014
doj state
dorsayindianlaw
or us
wrote
or us
wrote
com
Stay
Pending
Appeal
it
11 00 AM
got
everything
Easton
mailto
2014
19
Potter
Motion
Joyce
or us mailto
May
Anna
RE
LEaston
joyce
11 10 AM
for Emergency
at
ve
Anna
anna
Anna
anna
joyce
crossed
LEaston
that
doj state
can
be
dorsayindianlaw
and
am occasionally
forgetting
to
com
11 00 AM
Sheila
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
crossed
Ann
From
Sent
To
Ann
Joyce
Subject
mailto
doj state
Yes indeed
breathe
Joyce
or us mailto
Easton
Sent
Monday
May
To
Joyce Anna
Joyce Anna
mailto anna joyce
Sunday
May 18
2014 9 57 AM
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Motion
that
s the
after
they
do
Tomorrow
is
Lea
Sent
Sunday
Ann
not
thing
prevent
to
or us
LEaston
2014
ve
done
like
Pending
Hoping
Appeal
to
be able
stay from going
to
into
file
something
as soon
as possible
effect
be insane
May 18
ve
Stay
an Idaho
Easton
To
Joyce Anna
Subject
Re
Motion
have
for Emergency
same
to
going
From
doj state
Easton
Yeah
No
AM
May
19
Anna
they
anna
On
Sheila
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
9 32 AM
for Emergency
drafted
Stay
barebones
Pending
Appeal
opposition
with holes
to
fill
in
com
am wondering
motion to
Lea
they
have
is
to
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
503
790
McShane
appeal
issues
so it
his order
will
likely
though
because
be filed
appeal
tomorrow
at
of
12 02 pm
Have
OR
From
9060
2014
anna
Lea
Sent
at
joyce
mailto
Easton
Friday
May 16
Anna
mailto
katevts
com
2014
lake
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
sberman
stollberne
com mailto
mailto
kdiaz
perkinscoie
aclu
mailto
Subject
I
RE
just spoke
Friday
To
anna
mailto
joyce
anna
mailto
mailto
jenny
mailto
katevts
works
com
MIsaak
lake
perkinscoie
mailto
sheila
MIsaak
potter
mailto
potter
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
stollberne
com mailto
kdiaz
Subject
NOM
perkinscoie
com
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
com
mailto
sberman
kdiaz
stollberne
aclu
com
or org
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
Appeal
on the
emergency
stay and
anticipate
filing
oppose
com
anna
joyce
anna
mailto
doj state
joyce
or us
doj state
katevts
multco us
mailto
multco us mailto
multco us 3e
mailto
or us 3e
com
m madkour
katevts
MIsaak
lake
perkinscoie
sheila
or us
law
lake
works
com
TRJohnson
mailto
rsaxe aclu
mailto
for Emergency
kdiaz
Stay
potter
perkinscoie
com 3e
jenny
katevts
law
works
com 3e
m madkour
com mailto
Lea
MIsaak
multco us
multco us
Ann
lake
law
Easton
perkinscoie
com
com
or us
doj state
mailto
org mailto
or us 3e
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
org 3e
stollberne
kdiaz
doj state
sheila
rsaxe aclu
sberman
com 3e
potter
mailto
com 3e
mailto
or org
law
aclu
aclu
Pending
com
mailto
or org mailto
sberman
kdiaz
stollberne
aclu
com
or org
or org 3e
Appeal
Counsel
anticipates
Intervention
such
perkinscoie
aclu
Motion
com
com
com mailto
sberman
mailto
mailto
or us mailto
stollberne
lake
com 3e
TRJohnson
sberman
com
or org mailto
Pending
mailto
jenny
works
mailto
mailto
com mailto
or org 3e
hbclawyers
or us
doj state
perkinscoie
multco us
3 19 PM
com mailto
doj state
sheila
TRJohnson
Dear
roger
mailto
perkinscoie
aclu
are working
multco us 3e
law
works
MIsaak
org mailto
com mailto
multco us
mailto
law
m madkour
multco us
com 3e
mailto
perkinscoie
aclu
Stay
They
told
multco us mailto
m madkour
lake
works
jenny
katevts
org 3e
kdiaz
kdiaz
mailto
com
com 3e
mary h williams msn
m madkour
law
com
stollberne
or us mailto
doj state
jenny
2014
doj state
joyce
lake
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
Harris
mailto
May 16
multco us
Sheila
TRJohnson
for Emergency
Harris
Roger
Sent
com
com 3e
com 3e
or tomorrow
From
dorsayindianlaw
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
Potter
mailto
with Roger
later today
LEaston
multco us 3e
mailto
sberman
com mailto
Motion
katevts
com 3e
mary h williams msn
or us
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
m madkour
com 3e
mailto
or org
com mailto
LEaston
katevts
MIsaak
com mailto
TRJohnson
stollberne
doj state
not
mailto
com
com 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
jenny
works
com mailto
perkinscoie
joyce
3 23 PM
mailto
law
perkinscoie
sberman
have
mailto
multco us 3e
multco us
mailto
mailto
com
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
anna
wrote
m madkour
MIsaak
Anna
dorsayindianlaw
jenny
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
m madkour
MIsaak
Joyce
or us 3e
Ann
mailto
works
8 23 AM
doj state
LEaston
Joyce
jenny
Columbia
97258
you seen
mailto
To
LLP
1 SW
May 18
mailto
it
wait til
interlocutory
Ann
Dorsay
On
if
intervene
We
filing
will
a motion unless
a Motion
assume that
you advise
courtesies
for Emergency
all
me otherwise
and
Stay
parties in the
Please
consideration
Pending
Appeal
litigation
call
if
of
object
you have
the
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
oppose
Thank
you
Roger
HBC
Harris
Logo
Color
P C
sig
Attorneys
and
968
1475
www
hbclawyers
503
http
professionals
vCard http
Add
Counselors
F 503
roger
www
5000
SW
Add
Meadows
http
Road
context
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
D 503
http
www
http
com vcard
www
596
2910
hbclawyers
www
hbclawyers
Harris
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com
3e
com http
Bio http
com professionals
Roger
K VCFC
com vcard
Harris
Users
Roger
Roger
hbclawyers
www
roger
20Harris
K VCFC
com
hbclawyers
Users
harris
com
3e
Documents
Roger
20Harris
3e
Suite
400
Lake
Oswego
OR
97035
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
2003
harris
in 20Express
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
hbclawyers
in 20Express
Documents
968
com
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
CC
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 11 54 41
Subject
Re
Sheila
Motion
for
AM
Emergency
Stay Pending
Appeal
Buggers
Lea Ann
On May
Seems
From
Sent
19
2014
at
11 54
AM
Joyce
Anna
anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
wrote
likely
Lea Ann Easton
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
May 19 2014 11 51 AM
Monday
To
Joyce Anna
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Subject
Re
Will they
file
with Supreme Court
Stay Pending Appeal
Lea Ann
On May
From
Sent
19
2014
at
11 11
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Re
9th circuit
mailto
Joyce
LEaston
Anna
anna joyce
dorsayindianlaw
com
May 19 2014 11 10 AM
Monday
Subject
AM
denied
Stay Pending Appeal
it
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
Yes indeed
From
Sent
To
at
11 00
Joyce Anna
Subject
Fingers
Lea Ann
Anna
mailto
LEaston
anna joyce
that can
dorsayindianlaw
May 19 2014 11 00 AM
Potter
RE Motion
crossed
Joyce
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
AM
Sheila
for
be and
com
am occasionally
From
Sent
Yeah
RE Motion
that s
an Idaho
for
May
Sunday
Re
am
after
they do
to prevent
18
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
AM
2014 9 32
have not
file
Anna
Joyce
Subject
to be able to
going to be insane
is
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
Hoping
like
Tomorrow
No
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
anna joyce
mailto
May 18 2014 9 57 AM
wondering
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
will likely
it
til
be
with holes to
in
tomorrow
filed
fill
To
Joyce Anna
Sunday
at
12 02
is
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
OR
Portland
LLP
SW
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
2014
Have you
at
8 23
To
jenny
May
Friday
Anna
Joyce
multco us
multco us
katevts
MIsaak
sberman
perkinscoie
stollberne
RE
just
justicelawyers
dorsayindianlaw
law works com
mailto mary h
com
com
mailto lake
Potter Sheila
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
justicelawyers
com
rsaxe
kdiaz
law works com
H
aclu org
aclu or org
May
To anna
joyce
16 2014 3 19
aclu org
aclu or org
msn com
williams
multco us
multco us
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
doj state or us
hbclawyers
mailto jenny
com
it
later
today or
com
PM
mailto jmiddleton
mailto katevts
filing
oppose
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
justicelawyers
m madkour
potter
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
Friday
jmiddleton
com
multco us
lake
mailto TRJohnson
Harris mailto roger
sheila
mailto LEaston
mailto jmiddleton
perkinscoie
mailto sberman
Sent
Easton
com
m madkour
multco us
From Roger
katevts
wrote
tomorrow
jenny
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto jenny
com
com
doj state or us
have not
mailto MIsaak
msn com
mary h williams
Subject
com
anna joyce
PM
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
LEaston
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
m madkour
Anna
Joyce
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
doj state or us
justicelawyers
m madkour
multco us
lake
mailto MIsaak
com
multco us
law works com
perkinscoie
com
doj state or us
mailto lake
law works com
Lea Ann
TRJohnson
sberman
perkinscoie
com
stollberne
Subject
com
mailto TRJohnson
mailto sberman
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
com
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu org
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
aclu or org
Dear Counsel
NOM
anticipates
assume
Please
that
call
if
Roger
HBC
all
filing
parties in

the litigation
Harris
Logo Color
Deny
ing Intervention
me
We
will
otherwise
consideration
C
sig
T
Bio
503 968 1475

http
Roger
5000
www
K VCFC
SW
F 503 968 2003
hbclawyers
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
503 596 2910
Suite 400
If
e mail in error
please advise
Add
Lake Oswego
com
http
vCard
http
hbclawyers
roger k harris
professionals
20Harris Documents
OR
in
www
www
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
com
vcard Harris
20Express
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
com
Users Roger
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
CC
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 12 50 26
Subject
Re
Wow
Sheila
Motion
for
PM
Emergency
Stay Pending
Appeal
Did you read opinion
Lea Ann
On May
Seems
From
Sent
19
2014
at
11 54
AM
Joyce
Anna
anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
wrote
likely
Lea Ann Easton
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
May 19 2014 11 51 AM
Monday
To
Joyce Anna
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Subject
Re
Will they
file
with Supreme Court
Stay Pending Appeal
Lea Ann
On May
From
Sent
19
2014
at
11 11
Lea Ann Easton
To
Joyce Anna
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Re
9th circuit
mailto
Joyce
LEaston
Anna
anna joyce
dorsayindianlaw
com
May 19 2014 11 10 AM
Monday
Subject
AM
denied
Stay Pending Appeal
it
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
Yes indeed
From
Sent
To
at
11 00
Joyce Anna
Subject
Fingers
Lea Ann
Anna
mailto
LEaston
anna joyce
that can
dorsayindianlaw
May 19 2014 11 00 AM
Potter
RE Motion
crossed
Joyce
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
AM
Sheila
for
be and
com
am occasionally
From
Sent
Yeah
RE Motion
that s
an Idaho
for
May
Sunday
Re
am
after
they do
to prevent
18
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
AM
2014 9 32
have not
file
Anna
Joyce
Subject
to be able to
going to be insane
is
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
Hoping
like
Tomorrow
No
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
anna joyce
mailto
May 18 2014 9 57 AM
wondering
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
will likely
it
til
be
with holes to
in
tomorrow
filed
fill
To
Joyce Anna
Sunday
at
12 02
is
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
OR
Portland
LLP
SW
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
2014
Have you
at
8 23
To
jenny
May
Friday
Anna
Joyce
multco us
multco us
katevts
MIsaak
sberman
perkinscoie
stollberne
RE
just
justicelawyers
dorsayindianlaw
law works com
mailto mary h
com
com
mailto lake
Potter Sheila
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
justicelawyers
com
rsaxe
kdiaz
law works com
H
aclu org
aclu or org
May
To anna
joyce
16 2014 3 19
aclu org
aclu or org
msn com
williams
multco us
multco us
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
doj state or us
hbclawyers
mailto jenny
com
it
later
today or
com
PM
mailto jmiddleton
mailto katevts
filing
oppose
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
justicelawyers
m madkour
potter
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
Friday
jmiddleton
com
multco us
lake
mailto TRJohnson
Harris mailto roger
sheila
mailto LEaston
mailto jmiddleton
perkinscoie
mailto sberman
Sent
Easton
com
m madkour
multco us
From Roger
katevts
wrote
tomorrow
jenny
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto jenny
com
com
doj state or us
have not
mailto MIsaak
msn com
mary h williams
Subject
com
anna joyce
PM
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
LEaston
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
m madkour
Anna
Joyce
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
doj state or us
justicelawyers
m madkour
multco us
lake
mailto MIsaak
com
multco us
law works com
perkinscoie
com
doj state or us
mailto lake
law works com
Lea Ann
TRJohnson
sberman
perkinscoie
com
stollberne
Subject
com
mailto TRJohnson
mailto sberman
perkinscoie
stollberne
com
com
kdiaz
rsaxe
aclu org
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
aclu or org
Dear Counsel
NOM
anticipates
assume
Please
that
call
if
Roger
HBC
all
filing
parties in

the litigation
Harris
Logo Color
Deny
ing Intervention
me
We
will
otherwise
consideration
C
sig
T
Bio
503 968 1475

http
Roger
5000
www
K VCFC
SW
F 503 968 2003
hbclawyers
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
503 596 2910
Suite 400
If
e mail in error
please advise
Add
Lake Oswego
com
http
vCard
http
hbclawyers
roger k harris
professionals
20Harris Documents
OR
in
www
www
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
com
vcard Harris
20Express
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
com
Users Roger
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 19 2014 12 51 22
Subject
RE
did
And
cried
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
That
Easton
mailto
2014
Sheila
Re
Wow
you read
Lea
On
LEaston
killed
me
dorsayindianlaw
com
12 50 PM
Motion
May 19
2014
joyce
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
opinion
likely
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
Will
Lea
at
11 54 AM
doj state
Seems
Easton
mailto
May
2014
19
Joyce
or us mailto
Anna
anna
LEaston
joyce
doj state
dorsayindianlaw
Sheila
Re
wrote
or us
wrote
or us
wrote
com
11 51 AM
Motion
file
for Emergency
with Supreme
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Court
Ann
May 19
2014
joyce
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
11 11 AM
Easton
mailto
May
2014
19
Joyce
or us mailto
Anna
anna
LEaston
joyce
doj state
dorsayindianlaw
com
11 10 AM
Anna
Sheila
Re
9th
circuit
Lea
Ann
May 19
anna
at
doj state
From
Motion
denied
2014
joyce
for Emergency
at
ve
Stay
Pending
Appeal
it
11 00 AM
doj state
Yes indeed
got
Joyce
or us mailto
everything
Anna
anna
joyce
crossed
that
doj state
can
be
and
breathe
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Joyce
Subject
Fingers
Lea
Ann
Easton
mailto
May
2014
Anna
RE
19
Potter
Motion
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
11 00 AM
Sheila
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
crossed
Ann
From
Joyce
Sent
Sunday
To
or us
Anna
they
anna
On
just about
Appeal
Ann
anna
On
Stay Pending
Anna
Subject
Did
conclusion
May
19
PM
Lea
Ann
Anna
mailto
May 18
Easton
anna
2014
joyce
9 57 AM
doj state
or us
com
am occasionally
forgetting
to
Subject
RE
Motion
Yeah
that
s the
after
they
do
Tomorrow
is
Lea
Sent
Sunday
To
Ann
Joyce
Subject
No
have
Suite
done
an Idaho
Hoping
like
Appeal
to
be able
stay from going
to
file
into
something
as soon
as possible
effect
be insane
LEaston
May 18
2014
Motion
not
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
9 32 AM
for Emergency
ve
if
drafted
they
intervene
Easton
440
Portland
503
790
have
is
Stay
Pending
barebones
to
opposition
wait til
interlocutory
Appeal
McShane
appeal
with holes
issues
so it
to
fill
his order
will
likely
in
though
be filed
because
appeal
tomorrow
at
of
12 02 pm
Have
OR
From
9060
2014
anna
Lea
Sent
mailto
Easton
LEaston
Friday
May 16
Anna
mailto
katevts
com
2014
lake
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
sberman
stollberne
com mailto
mailto
kdiaz
perkinscoie
aclu
mailto
Subject
I
RE
just spoke
Harris
Roger
Sent
Friday
To
anna
mailto
joyce
anna
mailto
jenny
jenny
mailto
katevts
com
MIsaak
mailto
sheila
mailto
perkinscoie
MIsaak
potter
sheila
lake
law
They
doj state
potter
jenny
katevts
law
works
com
com 3e
m madkour
multco us
multco us
com mailto
lake
law
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
H
com
mailto
org mailto
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
org 3e
aclu
com
mailto
sberman
or org mailto
kdiaz
stollberne
aclu
com
or org
or org 3e
com
mailto
roger
Pending
mary h williams msn
com
Appeal
are working
on the

hbclawyers
emergency
stay and
anticipate
filing
oppose
com
3 19 PM
or us mailto
or us
works
com
mailto
MIsaak
doj state
joyce
or us
doj state
katevts
multco us
mailto
multco us mailto
multco us 3e
mailto
or us 3e
com
m madkour
katevts
com
joyce
anna
jenny
mailto
anna
mailto
com mailto
com mailto
perkinscoie
lake
perkinscoie
aclu
Stay
multco us 3e
multco us
mailto
kdiaz
mailto
works
com
stollberne
kdiaz
told
multco us mailto
m madkour
law
mary h williams msn
m madkour
mailto
works
doj state
lake
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
Harris
2014
doj state
joyce
com
com 3e
com 3e
mailto
May 16
multco us
Sheila
TRJohnson
mailto
or tomorrow
From
dorsayindianlaw
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
Potter
for Emergency
with Roger
later today
LEaston
multco us 3e
mailto
sberman
com mailto
Motion
katevts
com 3e
mary h williams msn
or us
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
m madkour
com 3e
mailto
or org
com mailto
LEaston
katevts
MIsaak
com mailto
TRJohnson
stollberne
doj state
not
mailto
com
com 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
jenny
works
com mailto
perkinscoie
joyce
3 23 PM
mailto
law
perkinscoie
sberman
have
mailto
multco us 3e
multco us
mailto
mailto
com
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
anna
wrote
m madkour
MIsaak
Anna
dorsayindianlaw
jenny
mailto
Joyce
or us 3e
dorsayindianlaw
m madkour
MIsaak
8 23 AM
doj state
Ann
mailto
works
at
joyce
LEaston
Joyce
jenny
Columbia
97258
you seen
mailto
To
LLP
1 SW
May 18
mailto
it
ve
Pending
Ann
Dorsay
On
to
Stay
Anna
Re
motion to
Lea
thing
prevent
Easton
am wondering
same
to
going
From
for Emergency
lake
perkinscoie
law
com
lake
works
mailto
jenny
katevts
law
works
com 3e
MIsaak
Lea
com 3e
m madkour
com mailto
Ann
Easton
perkinscoie
com 3e
or us mailto
doj state
or us
sheila
potter
mailto
doj state
sheila
potter
or us
doj state
multco us
multco us
or us 3e
com
lake
law
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
mailto
TRJohnson
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
sberman
stollberne
com mailto
mailto
sberman
mailto
kdiaz
Subject
Dear
NOM
aclu
rsaxe aclu
com 3e
or org
kdiaz
Stay
com
mailto
org mailto
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
org 3e
stollberne
kdiaz
mailto
perkinscoie
rsaxe aclu
sberman
for Emergency
aclu
aclu
com
mailto
or org mailto
sberman
kdiaz
stollberne
aclu
com
or org
or org 3e
Pending
Appeal
Counsel
anticipates
We
filing
will
a motion unless
Roger
HBC
Harris
Logo
Color
you advise
and
1475
www
hbclawyers
vCard http
F 503
roger
www
5000
SW
Add
context
http
Road
under
or otherwise
attachments
keep
D 503
http
www
http
com vcard
www
call
if
of
the
object
you have
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
oppose
Thank
you
596
2910
hbclawyers
www
hbclawyers
Harris
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com
3e
com http
Bio http
com professionals
Roger
K VCFC
com vcard
Harris
Users
Roger
Roger
hbclawyers
www
roger
20Harris
K VCFC
com
hbclawyers
Users
harris
com
3e
Documents
Roger
20Harris
3e
Suite
400
Lake
Oswego
OR
97035
NOTICE
e mail may contain
by reply e mail
Appeal
litigation
consideration
2003
harris
in 20Express
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
968
com
hbclawyers
Meadows
from disclosure
Please
Pending
Counselors
in 20Express
Documents
and
Stay
parties in the
P C
968
professionals
all
sig
http
for Emergency
me otherwise
courtesies
Attorneys
503
a Motion
assume that
Add
TRJohnson
com 3e
mailto
stollberne
Motion
Intervention
such
perkinscoie
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 19 2014 12 52 50
Subject
Re
The
conclusion
me all
teary
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
made
all
Sheila
Motion
me all
over
for
teary
again
PM
Emergency
It
and
Stay Pending
then
read
Appeal
it
from the
start
and
the
conclusion
s so good
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
Wow
On
you read
May 19
2014
joyce
Lea
Ann
com mailto
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
likely
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
Will
Lea
at
11 54 AM
Easton
mailto
2014
19
Joyce
or us mailto
May
Sheila
Re
Anna
anna
LEaston
joyce
doj state
dorsayindianlaw
or us
wrote
or us
wrote
or us
wrote
com
11 51 AM
Motion
file
for Emergency
with Supreme
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Court
Ann
May 19
2014
joyce
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
11 11 AM
Easton
mailto
May
2014
19
Joyce
or us mailto
Anna
anna
LEaston
joyce
doj state
dorsayindianlaw
com
11 10 AM
Anna
Sheila
Re
9th
circuit
Lea
Ann
May 19
anna
at
doj state
From
Motion
denied
2014
joyce
for Emergency
at
ve
Stay
Pending
Appeal
it
11 00 AM
doj state
Yes indeed
got
Joyce
or us mailto
everything
Anna
anna
joyce
crossed
that
doj state
can
be
and
breathe
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Joyce
Subject
Fingers
Lea
wrote
Anna
they
anna
To
com
opinion
doj state
Seems
On
12 50 PM
Ann
anna
On
at
Justice
dorsayindianlaw
Did
Lea
2014
of
Ann
Ann
Easton
mailto
May
2014
Anna
RE
19
Potter
Motion
crossed
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
11 00 AM
Sheila
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
com
am occasionally
forgetting
to
made
From
Joyce
Sent
Sunday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Anna
Motion
that
s the
after
they
do
is
Lea
Sent
Sunday
Ann
Joyce
Subject
No
have
Suite
to
ve
Stay
Pending
done
an Idaho
Hoping
like
Appeal
to
be able
stay from going
to
file
into
something
as soon
as possible
effect
be insane
LEaston
May 18
2014
Motion
not
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
9 32 AM
for Emergency
ve
if
drafted
they
intervene
Easton
440
Portland
503
790
have
is
Stay
Pending
barebones
to
opposition
wait til
interlocutory
Appeal
McShane
appeal
with holes
issues
so it
to
fill
his order
will
likely
in
though
be filed
because
appeal
tomorrow
at
of
12 02 pm
Have
OR
From
9060
2014
anna
Lea
Sent
mailto
Easton
LEaston
Friday
May 16
Anna
mailto
katevts
com
2014
lake
works
com mailto
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
sberman
stollberne
com mailto
mailto
kdiaz
perkinscoie
aclu
mailto
Subject
I
RE
just spoke
Harris
Roger
Sent
Friday
To
anna
mailto
joyce
anna
mailto
jenny
jenny
mailto
katevts
com
lake
kdiaz
law
mailto
com
lake
works
jenny
katevts
law
works
com
com 3e
m madkour
multco us
multco us
com mailto
lake
law
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
com
mailto
org mailto
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
org 3e
aclu
aclu
Stay
They
com
mailto
sberman
or org mailto
kdiaz
stollberne
aclu
com
or org
or org 3e
com
mailto
roger
Pending
mary h williams msn
com
Appeal
are working
on the

hbclawyers
emergency
stay and
anticipate
filing
oppose
com
3 19 PM
or us mailto
or us
com mailto
mailto
works
anna
mailto
com
mailto
doj state
joyce
or us
doj state
katevts
multco us
mailto
multco us mailto
multco us 3e
mailto
or us 3e
com
m madkour
katevts
com
joyce
anna
jenny
multco us 3e
multco us
mailto
law
Sheila
stollberne
kdiaz
told
multco us mailto
m madkour
lake
mary h williams msn
m madkour
mailto
works
doj state
multco us
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
Harris
2014
doj state
joyce
com
com 3e
com 3e
mailto
May 16
dorsayindianlaw
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
mailto
or tomorrow
From
LEaston
multco us 3e
mailto
Potter
for Emergency
with Roger
later today
katevts
sberman
com mailto
Motion
or us
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
katevts
com
com 3e
mary h williams msn
com mailto
LEaston
m madkour
com 3e
mailto
or org
doj state
not
mailto
jenny
MIsaak
com mailto
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
com 3e
stollberne
joyce
3 23 PM
mailto
law
perkinscoie
sberman
have
mailto
multco us 3e
multco us
mailto
mailto
com
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
anna
wrote
m madkour
MIsaak
Anna
dorsayindianlaw
jenny
mailto
Joyce
or us 3e
dorsayindianlaw
m madkour
MIsaak
8 23 AM
doj state
Ann
mailto
works
at
joyce
LEaston
Joyce
jenny
Columbia
97258
you seen
mailto
To
LLP
1 SW
May 18
mailto
it
or us
Ann
Dorsay
On
doj state
Anna
Re
motion to
Lea
thing
prevent
Easton
am wondering
joyce
9 57 AM
for Emergency
same
to
going
From
To
anna
2014
Easton
Yeah
Tomorrow
mailto
May 18
lake
law
lake
works
jenny
katevts
law
com 3e
works
Lea
com 3e
m madkour
multco us
multco us
com mailto
Ann
Easton
lake
law
MIsaak
perkinscoie
mailto
sheila
MIsaak
potter
mailto
doj state
sheila
TRJohnson
com mailto
perkinscoie
potter
TRJohnson
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
sberman
stollberne
com mailto
mailto
kdiaz
Subject
Dear
NOM
aclu
TRJohnson
mailto
rsaxe aclu
com 3e
or org
kdiaz
Stay
potter
perkinscoie
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
or us
doj state
com
mailto
org mailto
or us 3e
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
perkinscoie
com
org
org 3e
stollberne
kdiaz
mailto
doj state
sheila
rsaxe aclu
sberman
for Emergency
aclu
aclu
com
mailto
or org mailto
sberman
kdiaz
stollberne
aclu
com
or org
or org 3e
Pending
Appeal
Counsel
anticipates
We
filing
will
a motion unless
Roger
HBC
Harris
Logo
Color
you advise
and
1475
www
hbclawyers
vCard http
F 503
roger
www
5000
SW
Add
context
http
Road
under
or otherwise
attachments
keep
D 503
http
www
http
com vcard
www
call
if
of
the
object
you have
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
oppose
Thank
you
596
2910
hbclawyers
www
hbclawyers
Harris
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com
3e
com http
Bio http
com professionals
Roger
K VCFC
com vcard
Harris
Users
Roger
Roger
hbclawyers
www
roger
20Harris
K VCFC
com
hbclawyers
Users
harris
com
3e
Documents
Roger
20Harris
3e
Suite
400
Lake
Oswego
OR
97035
NOTICE
e mail may contain
by reply e mail
Appeal
litigation
consideration
2003
harris
in 20Express
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
968
com
hbclawyers
Meadows
from disclosure
Please
Pending
Counselors
in 20Express
Documents
and
Stay
parties in the
P C
968
professionals
all
sig
http
for Emergency
me otherwise
courtesies
Attorneys
503
a Motion
assume that
Add
com
potter
mailto
com 3e
mailto
stollberne
Motion
Intervention
such
perkinscoie
sheila
or us
com mailto
mailto
sberman
perkinscoie
or us mailto
doj state
perkinscoie
mailto
MIsaak
com 3e
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 12 54 45
Subject
Re
Me
too
read
it
out loud
Sheila
Motion
for
PM
Emergency
to Pat Dorris
KGW
Stay Pending
Appeal
reporter
Lea Ann
On May
The
19
2014
conclusion
again
It
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
at
12 52
made me
all
PM
teary
Potter Sheila
and then
sheila
read
it
potter
from the
start
doj state or us
wrote
and the conclusi on made
me
all
teary
all
over
so good
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On May
19
LEaston
Wow
2014
at
Justice
12 50
dorsayindianlaw
PM
com
Lea Ann Easton

mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
11 54
AM
Anna
Joyce
anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
Seems
likely
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
May
Monday
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
2014 11 51
dorsayindianlaw
com
AM
Anna
Sheila
Re
Will they
19
mailto LEaston
with Supreme Court
file
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
11 11
AM
Anna
Joyce
anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
Monday
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
May
Anna
Sheila
19
mailto LEaston
2014 11 10
AM
dorsayindianlaw
com
Subject
Re
9th circuit denied
it
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
11 00
AM
Anna
Joyce
anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
Yes indeed
From Lea Ann Easton
To
May
Monday
Sent
Anna
Joyce
Subject
RE
19
Potter
mailto LEaston
2014 11 00
Sheila
that
can be and
am
occasionally
forgetting
to breathe
com
dorsayindianlaw
AM
Fingers crossed
Lea Ann
From
mailto anna joyce
May
18
Yeah
RE
that s
an Idaho
like
Tomorrow
Joyce
Subject
May
am
file
after
they do
to prevent
18
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 32
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
AM
Anna
Re
have not
to be able to
going to be insane
is
Sunday
Sent
Hoping
From Lea Ann Easton
No
doj state or us
AM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
2014 9 57
wondering
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
it
will likely
til
be
filed
with holes to
fill
To
Anna
Joyce
Sunday
Sent
in
tomorrow
at
12 02
is
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
Portland
LLP
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
2014
at
8 23
AM
Joyce
Anna
anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
Have you
From Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
have not
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
3e
mailto LEaston
Sent
To
Anna
Joyce
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
mailto jmiddleton
jenny
m madkour multco
m madkour
MIsaak
us
mailto rsaxe
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
mailto mary h
RE
com
3e
mailto kdiaz
com
3e
mailto jenny
m madkour
law works com
tomorrow
mailto MIsaak
From Roger
Harris mailto roger
Sent
May
Friday
To anna
joyce
16 2014 3 19
com
com
mailto sberman
com
aclu org
kdiaz
doj state or us
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
m madkour multco
mailto jenny m madkour
jenny
aclu or org
com
perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
aclu
msn com
mailto mary h
msn com
williams
perkinscoie
mailto rsaxe
com
com
stollberne
3e
mailto kdiaz
m madkour
multco us
potter
3e
sberman
mailto kdiaz
com
com
perkinscoie
3e
com
doj state or us
3e
mailto TRJohnson
mailto rsaxe
mailto sberman
aclu or org
law works com
mailto lake
doj state or us
stollberne
multco us
Lea Ann Easton
doj state or us
com
stollberne
mailto sberman
com
3e
m madkour
law works com
mailto MIsaak
aclu org
justicelawyers
multco us
mailto katevts
3e
perkinscoie
rsaxe
com
mailto jenny
lake
com
com
aclu or org
3e
doj state or us
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
law works com

perkinscoie
sheila
com
multco us
multco us
katevts
mailto TRJohnson
com
justicelawyers
mailto jmiddleton
3e
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
jmiddleton
mailto lake
3e
aclu org
mailto sberman
3e
mailto MIsaak
com
today or
com
hbclawyers
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
later
it
PM
doj state or us
mailto TRJohnson
filing
oppose
multco us
perkinscoie
Subject
mailto kdiaz
3e
mailto jenny
law works com
mailto lake
or org
us
multco us
mailto katevts
TRJohnson
com
aclu org
com
stollberne
3e
perkinscoie
mailto rsaxe
3e
aclu or org
williams
mailto TRJohnson
mailto rsaxe
stollberne
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
law works com
mailto lake
3e
just
multco us
multco us
aclu org
stollberne
com
mailto katevts
lake
perkinscoie
rsaxe
mailto mary h
msn com
3e
com
perkinscoie
mailto sberman
aclu or org
williams
multco us
Potter Sheila
sberman
com
msn com
mary h williams
Subject
3e
aclu org
mailto sberman
3e
multco us
law works com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
3e
justicelawyers
justicelawyers
multco us
katevts
mailto MIsaak
com
mailto jmiddleton
m madkour
3e
mailto lake
com
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
or org
mailto jenny
perkinscoie
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto jmiddleton
mailto katevts
com
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
com
multco us
multco us
mailto MIsaak
com
justicelawyers
law works com
mailto lake
mailto LEaston
PM
justicelawyers
mailto jenny
mailto katevts
com
dorsayindianlaw
May
Friday
aclu org
stollberne
kdiaz
perkinscoie
mailto rsaxe
com
aclu org
com
aclu or org
mailto kdiaz
aclu
3e
Dear Counsel
NOM
anticipates
assume
Please
that
call
Roger
HBC
if
all
filing
parties in
the litigation
Harris
Deny
ing Intervention
me
We
otherwise
consideration
Logo Color
sig
com
hbclawyers
roger k harris
vCard
http
D 503 596 2910 hbclawyers com http hbclawyers com

www hbclawyers com 3e
Bio http
www hbclawyers com
F 503 968 2003
503 968 1475
www
http
www
http
www
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com
com
professionals
vcard Harris Roger
roger k harris
K VCFC
http
professionals
3e
Users Roger
20Harris Documents
will
Add
in
20Express
Add
in
20Express
5000
SW
http
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
hbclawyers
Suite 400
com
vcard Harris Roger
Lake Oswego
K VCFC
Users Roger
20Harris Documents
If
e mail in error
please advise
OR
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
www
3e
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 12 59 02
Subject
Re
Can
Sheila
Motion
for
PM
Emergency
Stay Pending
Appeal
buy you glass of wine tonight
Lea Ann
On May
The
19
2014
conclusion
again
It
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
at
12 52
made me
all
PM
teary
Potter Sheila
and then
sheila
read
it
potter
from the
start
doj state or us
wrote
me
all
teary
all
over
so good
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On May
19
LEaston
Wow
2014
at
Justice
12 50
dorsayindianlaw
PM
com
Lea Ann Easton

mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
11 54
AM
Anna
Joyce
anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
Seems
likely
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
May
Monday
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
2014 11 51
dorsayindianlaw
com
AM
Anna
Sheila
Re
Will they
19
mailto LEaston
with Supreme Court
file
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
11 11
AM
Anna
Joyce
anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
Monday
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
May
Anna
Sheila
19
mailto LEaston
2014 11 10
AM
dorsayindianlaw
com
Subject
Re
9th circuit denied
it
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
11 00
AM
Anna
Joyce
anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
Yes indeed
From Lea Ann Easton
To
May
Monday
Sent
Anna
Joyce
Subject
RE
19
Potter
mailto LEaston
2014 11 00
Sheila
that
can be and
am
occasionally
forgetting
to breathe
com
dorsayindianlaw
AM
Fingers crossed
Lea Ann
From
mailto anna joyce
May
18
Yeah
RE
that s
an Idaho
like
Tomorrow
Joyce
Subject
May
am
file
after
they do
to prevent
18
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 32
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
AM
Anna
Re
have not
to be able to
going to be insane
is
Sunday
Sent
Hoping
From Lea Ann Easton
No
doj state or us
AM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
2014 9 57
wondering
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
it
will likely
til
be
filed
with holes to
fill
To
Anna
Joyce
Sunday
Sent
in
tomorrow
at
12 02
is
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
Portland
LLP
SW
OR
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
2014
at
8 23
AM
Joyce
Anna
anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
Have you
From Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
have not
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
3e
mailto LEaston
Sent
To
Anna
Joyce
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
mailto jmiddleton
jenny
m madkour multco
m madkour
MIsaak
us
mailto rsaxe
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
mailto mary h
RE
com
3e
mailto kdiaz
com
3e
mailto jenny
m madkour
law works com
tomorrow
mailto MIsaak
From Roger
Harris mailto roger
Sent
May
Friday
To anna
joyce
16 2014 3 19
com
com
mailto sberman
com
aclu org
kdiaz
doj state or us
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
m madkour multco
jenny
aclu or org
com
perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
aclu
msn com
mailto mary h
msn com
williams
perkinscoie
mailto rsaxe
com
com
stollberne
3e
mailto kdiaz
m madkour
multco us
potter
3e
sberman
mailto kdiaz
com
com
perkinscoie
3e
com
doj state or us
3e
mailto TRJohnson
mailto rsaxe
mailto sberman
aclu or org
law works com
mailto lake
doj state or us
stollberne
multco us
Lea Ann Easton
doj state or us
com
stollberne
mailto sberman
com
3e
m madkour
law works com
mailto MIsaak
aclu org
justicelawyers
multco us
mailto katevts
3e
perkinscoie
rsaxe
com
mailto jenny
lake
com
com
aclu or org
3e
doj state or us
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
law works com

perkinscoie
sheila
com
multco us
multco us
katevts
mailto TRJohnson
com
justicelawyers
mailto jmiddleton
3e
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
jmiddleton
mailto lake
3e
aclu org
mailto sberman
3e
mailto MIsaak
com
today or
com
hbclawyers
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
later
it
PM
doj state or us
mailto TRJohnson
filing
oppose
multco us
perkinscoie
Subject
mailto kdiaz
3e
mailto jenny
law works com
mailto lake
or org
us
multco us
mailto katevts
TRJohnson
com
aclu org
com
stollberne
3e
perkinscoie
mailto rsaxe
3e
aclu or org
williams
mailto TRJohnson
mailto rsaxe
stollberne
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
law works com
mailto lake
3e
just
multco us
multco us
aclu org
stollberne
com
mailto katevts
lake
perkinscoie
rsaxe
mailto mary h
msn com
3e
com
perkinscoie
mailto sberman
aclu or org
williams
multco us
Potter Sheila
sberman
com
msn com
mary h williams
Subject
3e
aclu org
mailto sberman
3e
multco us
law works com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
3e
justicelawyers
justicelawyers
multco us
katevts
mailto MIsaak
com
mailto jmiddleton
m madkour
3e
mailto lake
com
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
or org
mailto jenny
perkinscoie
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto jmiddleton
mailto katevts
com
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
com
multco us
multco us
mailto MIsaak
com
justicelawyers
law works com
mailto lake
mailto LEaston
PM
justicelawyers
mailto jenny
mailto katevts
com
dorsayindianlaw
May
Friday
aclu org
stollberne
kdiaz
perkinscoie
mailto rsaxe
com
aclu org
com
aclu or org
mailto kdiaz
aclu
3e
Dear Counsel
NOM
anticipates
assume
Please
that
call
Roger
HBC
if
all
filing
parties in
the litigation
Harris
Deny
ing Intervention
me
We
otherwise
consideration
Logo Color
sig
com
hbclawyers
roger k harris
vCard
http
D 503 596 2910 hbclawyers com http hbclawyers com

www hbclawyers com 3e
Bio http
www hbclawyers com
F 503 968 2003
503 968 1475
www
http
www
http
www
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com
com
professionals
vcard Harris Roger
roger k harris
K VCFC
http
professionals
3e
Users Roger
20Harris Documents
will
Add
in
20Express
Add
in
20Express
5000
SW
http
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
hbclawyers
Suite 400
com
vcard Harris Roger
Lake Oswego
K VCFC
Users Roger
20Harris Documents
If
e mail in error
please advise
OR
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
www
3e
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 19 2014 12 59 57
Subject
Re
Yes
And
then
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
can
Sheila
Motion
for
PM
Emergency
Stay Pending
Appeal
buy you one
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
Can
Lea
Ann
On
2014
at
Justice
12 59 PM
dorsayindianlaw
buy you glass
May 19
sheila
The
of
2014
potter
teary
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
at
wine
made
all
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
then
read
me all
over
Ann
com
teary
again
It
and
doj state
or us
from the
start
it
s so good
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
mailto
Wow
On
LEaston
Lea
Ann
com mailto
dorsayindianlaw
you read
May 19
2014
joyce
mailto
Easton
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
opinion
anna
likely
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Joyce
Potter
Subject
Will
Lea
joyce
Ann
Cc
11 54 AM
doj state
Easton
mailto
May
2014
19
Joyce
or us mailto
Anna
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
wrote
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
or us
com
11 51 AM
Anna
Sheila
Re
they
at
doj state
Seems
Motion
file
for Emergency
with Supreme
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Court
Ann
May 19
anna
2014
joyce
mailto
Lea
Sent
Monday
Joyce
at
11 11 AM
doj state
anna
From
To
12 50 PM
Ann
anna
On
at
Justice
dorsayindianlaw
Did
Lea
2014
of
joyce
Ann
Anna
Joyce
or us mailto
doj state
Easton
mailto
May
2014
19
wrote
tonight
12 52 PM
doj state
conclusion
me all
of
Lea
com mailto
Anna
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
wrote
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
11 10 AM
com
or us
wrote
and
the
conclusion
made
Cc
Potter
Subject
Sheila
Re
9th
circuit
Lea
Ann
On
May 19
anna
denied
2014
joyce
mailto
Motion
for Emergency
at
joyce
Yes indeed
ve
Pending
Appeal
it
11 00 AM
doj state
anna
Stay
Joyce
or us mailto
doj state
got
Anna
anna
or us
everything
joyce
doj state
or us
wrote
crossed
that
can
be
and
am occasionally
forgetting
to
breathe
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Ann
Joyce
Subject
Lea
mailto
2014
Anna
RE
Fingers
Easton
May
Potter
Motion
dorsayindianlaw
com
Sheila
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Ann
Joyce
Sent
Sunday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Anna
Motion
that
s the
they
do
From
Sent
To
is
Lea
mailto
Ann
No
to
or us
ve
Stay
Pending
done
an Idaho
Hoping
like
Appeal
to
be able
stay from going
to
file
into
something
as soon
as possible
effect
be insane
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
May 18
have
Motion
not
am wondering
Lea
doj state
2014
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
com
9 32 AM
Anna
Re
motion to
thing
prevent
going
Sunday
Subject
joyce
9 57 AM
for Emergency
same
to
LEaston
Joyce
anna
2014
Easton
after
Tomorrow
mailto
May 18
Yeah
for Emergency
ve
if
drafted
they
intervene
is
have
Stay
Pending
barebones
to
opposition
wait til
interlocutory
Appeal
McShane
appeal
with holes
issues
so it
to
fill
his order
will
likely
in
though
be filed
because
tomorrow
appeal
at
of
12 02 pm
Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
503
On
LEaston
11 00 AM
crossed
From
19
790
OR
Have
2014
anna
Lea
at
joyce
you seen
From
Columbia
97258
9060
May 18
mailto
LLP
1 SW
Ann
8 23 AM
Joyce
doj state
Anna
or us

Easton
LEaston
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
Friday
May 16
To
Joyce
Anna
2014
mailto
mailto
katevts
mailto
jenny
multco us mailto
m madkour
multco us
multco us mailto
katevts
mailto
m madkour
have
multco us
joyce
joyce
doj state
or us
doj state
or us 3e
wrote
not
com mailto
LEaston
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
com
com
3 23 PM
mailto
jenny
anna
dorsayindianlaw
mailto
Sent
anna
mailto
katevts
mailto
com
com mailto
mailto
com
com
com 3e
jenny
m madkour
mailto
multco us
katevts
jenny
multco us
m madkour
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
multco us 3e
multco us
lake
law
works
com mailto
lake
law
works
com
works
com 3e
mailto
lake
MIsaak
law
works
com
perkinscoie
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
TRJohnson
mailto
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
mailto
com mailto
perkinscoie
org mailto
org
rsaxe aclu
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
mailto
RE
Motion
just spoke
Harris
From
Roger
Sent
Friday
anna
mailto
May 16
joyce
mailto
Harris
I
doj state
or us mailto
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
anna
mailto
com mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
jenny
katevts
katevts
works
com
works
com 3e
mailto
mailto
mailto
lake
Lea
MIsaak
MIsaak
potter
katevts
multco us
Ann
works
Easton
katevts
com
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
com 3e
or us mailto
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
rsaxe aclu
com mailto
perkinscoie
org mailto
rsaxe aclu
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
kdiaz
Subject
Dear
NOM
Motion
anticipate
filing
mailto
kdiaz
Stay
law
works
aclu
MIsaak
com
mailto
org
lake
lake
law
law
com
com
mailto
or us
TRJohnson
mailto
or org mailto
Appeal
com mailto
perkinscoie
com
com 3e
stollberne
Pending
multco us
or us
sberman
or org
m madkour
perkinscoie
doj state
com mailto
aclu
works
mailto
perkinscoie
rsaxe aclu
jenny
com
potter
perkinscoie
law
com
doj state
TRJohnson
com
multco us
lake
com mailto
sheila
sberman
kdiaz
com
mailto
katevts
potter
mailto
or us
multco us 3e
perkinscoie
stollberne
mailto
for Emergency
anticipates
We
filing
will
a motion unless
Roger
HBC
Harris
Logo
Color
Attorneys
and
1475
503
968
http
kdiaz
kdiaz
rsaxe aclu
stollberne
aclu
aclu
org
com
or org
or org 3e
www
professionals
K VCFC
Harris
you advise
all
me otherwise
courtesies
and
Stay
Pending
parties in the
Appeal
litigation
Please
call
if
of
the
object
you have
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
oppose
Thank
consideration
P C
Counselors
F 503
com
968
roger
Roger
Roger
K VCFC
Meadows
2003
http
hbclawyers
Users
SW
for Emergency
sig
hbclawyers
Bio http
a Motion
assume that
5000
sberman
or org
stay and
Counsel
Intervention
such
mailto
org
mailto
aclu
com
or us
doj state
multco us
lake
mailto
TRJohnson
com
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
mary h williams msn
emergency
m madkour
mailto
sheila
doj state
perkinscoie
or org
or org 3e
oppose
multco us 3e
MIsaak
potter
TRJohnson
aclu
aclu
org
com
com 3e
doj state
joyce
perkinscoie
mailto
sheila
mailto
kdiaz
jenny
mailto
mailto
TRJohnson
on the
joyce
anna
multco us
perkinscoie
doj state
rsaxe aclu
stollberne
kdiaz
mailto
com
Appeal
m madkour
mailto
mailto
law
com
perkinscoie
com
mailto
jenny
multco us
multco us mailto
mailto
sheila
multco us mailto
m madkour
mailto
mailto
m madkour
com
or org mailto
are working
hbclawyers
joyce
mailto
mailto
stollberne
or org
TRJohnson
com 3e
sberman
Pending
law
3 19 PM
anna
jenny
mailto
org
mailto
com
mary h williams msn
Stay
They
told
roger
2014
aclu
lake
com
com mailto
mary h williams msn
com
or tomorrow
aclu
mailto
com
perkinscoie
rsaxe aclu
sberman
kdiaz
for Emergency
with Roger
later today
To
com mailto
perkinscoie
mailto
com
TRJohnson
kdiaz
works
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
stollberne
mailto
mailto
mary h williams msn
Subject
it
sberman
or org
mary h williams msn
mailto
law
MIsaak
Sheila
TRJohnson
mailto
lake
MIsaak
Potter
com
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
mailto
com mailto
www
CONFIDENTIALITY
596
com professionals
harris
20Harris
Road
D 503
hbclawyers
Users
3e
Suite
NOTICE
400
Add
20Harris
Lake
hbclawyers
com
roger
vCard http
Documents
Roger
2910
http
k
www
harris
www
com http
http
hbclawyers
www
http
Documents
in 20Express
Oswego
OR
97035
www
com
Harris
hbclawyers
3e
com
3e
hbclawyers
com vcard
in 20Express
Add
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com
Roger
com vcard
you
This
e mail may contain
from disclosure
context
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
keep
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 1 01 14
Subject
Re
Why
don
we
hang
at
Sheila
Motion
my house
see
PM
Emergency
for
if
Anna
Stay Pending
Mary want
or
to
Appeal
if
CP
will
me
all
come
too
am
going to see
come up
Lea Ann
On May
19
And
Yes
Sheila
Deputy
2014
at
1 00
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
then can I buy you one
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Trial
On May
19
LEaston
Can
2014
at
Justice
12 59
dorsayindianlaw
PM
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Lea Ann
On May
sheila
The
19
2014
potter
conclusion
again
It
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
at
12 52
PM
doj state or us
Potter Sheila
made me
all
and then
teary
read
it
wrote
doj state or us
from the
start
teary
all
over
so good
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On May
19
LEaston
2014
12 50
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
Wow
at
Justice
PM
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
mailto anna joyce
Seems
likely
at
11 54
AM
Joyce
doj state or us
Anna
wrote
anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
May
Monday
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
mailto LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
AM
2014 11 51
Anna
Sheila
Re
Will they
19
with Supreme Court
file
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
11 11
May
Monday
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
19
Anna
Joyce
anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
mailto LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
AM
2014 11 10
Anna
Sheila
Re
9th circuit denied
it
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
Yes indeed
11 00
To
May
Monday
Anna
Joyce
Subject
RE
Anna
Joyce
19
Potter
mailto LEaston
doj state or us
that
can be and
am
occasionally
forgetting
to breathe
com
dorsayindianlaw
AM
2014 11 00
Sheila
anna joyce
wrote
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
doj state or us
Fingers crossed
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Anna
Joyce
May
Sunday
mailto anna joyce
18
AM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Yeah
RE
that s
an Idaho
like
Tomorrow
is
Sunday
Joyce
Subject
to be able to
May
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
18
2014 9 32
dorsayindianlaw
com
com
AM
Anna
Re
file
after
going to be insane
mailto LEaston
Sent
Hoping
From Lea Ann Easton
To
2014 9 57
doj state or us
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
they do
to prevent
have not
am
wondering
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
til
be
will likely
it
with holes to
in
tomorrow
filed
fill
No
at
12 02
is
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
LLP
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
Have you
8 23
AM
3e
From Lea Ann Easton
Anna
Joyce
doj state or us
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
To
May
Friday
Anna
Joyce
justicelawyers
com
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
com
m madkour
m madkour
mailto jenny
mailto lake
mailto MIsaak
Potter
3e
3e
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
aclu org
mailto sberman
kdiaz
mailto kdiaz
com
3e
msn com
mailto mary h
williams
msn com
just
RE
com
perkinscoie
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
com
From Roger
Harris mailto roger
Sent
May
To anna
joyce
16 2014 3 19
mailto rsaxe
mailto sberman
mailto sberman
mailto kdiaz
williams
stollberne
aclu org
stollberne
com
com
3e
aclu or org
msn com
msn com
com
m madkour multco
m madkour
us
it
later
today or
oppose
hbclawyers
com
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
filing
PM
doj state or us
justicelawyers
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jenny
3e
3e
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce

jmiddleton
com
Friday
com
perkinscoie
com
com
mailto mary h
williams
law
lake
law works com
perkinscoie
aclu org
stollberne
aclu or org
msn com
multco us
com
mailto rsaxe
sberman
3e
mailto lake
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
aclu org
3e
mailto mary h
multco us
tomorrow
jenny
rsaxe
aclu org
mary h williams
williams
Subject
3e
m madkour
multco us
mailto MIsaak
mailto TRJohnson
aclu or org
mailto mary h
com
perkinscoie
mailto sberman
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org
com
mailto jenny
multco us
mailto katevts
perkinscoie
com
com
mailto katevts
law works com
mailto lake
mailto TRJohnson
mailto rsaxe
stollberne
aclu or org
multco us
justicelawyers
multco us
multco us
mailto MIsaak
mailto TRJohnson
mailto rsaxe
com
justicelawyers
m madkour
jenny m madkour
katevts
MIsaak
com
mailto jmiddleton
jenny
mailto katevts
TRJohnson
com
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
mailto jmiddleton
3e
law works com
perkinscoie
Sheila
com
mailto
multco us
law works com
mailto lake
mailto LEaston
mailto LEaston
multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
works com
com
3e
justicelawyers
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jenny
doj state or us
PM
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
have not
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
Sent
anna joyce
wrote
com
justicelawyers
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jenny
multco us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
com
doj state or us
3e
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
com
m madkour multco us mailto jenny m madkour

m madkour multco us 3e
mailto jenny
justicelawyers
3e
multco us
com
multco us
katevts
works com
MIsaak
potter
com
aclu org
mailto rsaxe
aclu org
3e
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
sberman
com
stollberne
3e
3e
com
mailto kdiaz
com
com
aclu org
com
stollberne
mailto sberman
aclu or org
perkinscoie
3e
mailto rsaxe
mailto sberman
stollberne
doj state or us
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
aclu org
com
mailto sberman
aclu or org
com
com
perkinscoie
doj state or us
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
aclu org
com
perkinscoie
law
mailto lake
Lea Ann Easton
3e
mailto MIsaak
doj state or us
com
perkinscoie
aclu or org
mailto MIsaak
mailto TRJohnson
mailto rsaxe
mailto sberman
mailto kdiaz
com
law works com
com
multco us
mailto katevts
law works com
mailto lake
mailto lake
perkinscoie
doj state or us
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
kdiaz
com
perkinscoie
multco us
mailto katevts
law works com
lake
mailto MIsaak
doj state or us
TRJohnson
rsaxe
3e
law works com
mailto lake
perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
sheila
multco us
mailto katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
com
3e
aclu or org
3e
Subject
Dear Counsel
NOM
anticipates
assume
Please
that
call
HBC
filing
parties in

the litigation
if
Roger
all
Harris
Logo Color
Deny
ing Intervention
me
We
will
otherwise
consideration
C
sig
com
hbclawyers
Bio
k
www
http
harris
3e
http
www
hbclawyers
vCard
http
20Express
Documents Add
in
20Express
SW
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
hbclawyers
www
http
www
com
com
http
hbclawyers
roger k harris
hbclawyers
http
http
www
vcard Harris Roger
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
com
http
3e
hbclawyers
K VCFC
com
com
professionals
Users Roger
K VCFC
vcard Harris Roger
roger
20Harris
Users Roger
20Harris
3e
Suite 400
Lake Oswego
OR
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
com
professionals
www
in
503 596 2910
hbclawyers
com
Documents Add
5000
F 503 968 2003
503 968 1475
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 19 2014 1 07 37
Subject
Re
Sheila
Motion
for
PM
Emergency
Stay Pending
Appeal
Deal
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
Why
don
will
Lea
On
2014
of
at
Justice
1 01 PM
dorsayindianlaw
t
we
come
up
hang
at
Lea
Ann
com mailto
my house
Easton
LEaston
see if
Anna
dorsayindianlaw
or Mary
want
to
com
come
wrote
too
am going
to
see if
CP
Ann
May 19
sheila
Yes
2014
potter
And
then
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
at
1 00 PM
doj state
can
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
buy you one
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
mailto
Can
Lea
Ann
On
2014
of
at
Justice
12 59 PM
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
buy you glass
May 19
2014
of
at
wine
potter
doj state
mailto
sheila
potter
conclusion
me all
teary
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
made
all
Easton
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
me all
over
Ann
tonight
12 52 PM
sheila
The
Lea
com mailto
or us
teary
again
It
doj state
or us
from the
start
wrote
and
then
read
it
and
the
conclusion
s so good
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
mailto
Wow
Lea
On
2014
of
at
Justice
12 50 PM
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
Did
Lea
dorsayindianlaw
you read
Ann
com mailto
Easton
LEaston
com
mailto
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
opinion
Ann
May 19
anna
2014
joyce
mailto
anna
at
11 54 AM
doj state
joyce
Joyce
or us mailto
doj state
or us
Anna
anna
joyce
mailto
doj state
anna
joyce
or us
doj state
or us
wrote
made
Seems
likely
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
Will
Lea
On
mailto
2014
19
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
11 51 AM
Anna
Sheila
Re
they
Motion
file
for Emergency
with Supreme
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Court
Ann
May 19
anna
2014
joyce
mailto
anna
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Joyce
Potter
Subject
Joyce
or us mailto
doj state
Easton
mailto
May
2014
19
Sheila
Re
circuit
Lea
Ann
May 19
Anna
anna
or us
joyce
mailto
LEaston
doj state
anna
joyce
dorsayindianlaw
or us
doj state
or us
wrote
or us
wrote
com
11 10 AM
Motion
denied
2014
joyce
mailto
11 11 AM
Anna
9th
anna
joyce
Ann
Cc
at
doj state
From
On
Easton
May
for Emergency
at
joyce
Yes indeed
ve
Pending
Appeal
it
11 00 AM
doj state
anna
Stay
Joyce
or us mailto
doj state
got
or us
everything
Anna
anna
joyce
mailto
crossed
doj state
anna
that
joyce
can
or us
doj state
be
and
am occasionally
forgetting
to
breathe
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Ann
Joyce
Subject
Fingers
Lea
mailto
2014
Anna
RE
Potter
Sunday
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Anna
com
H
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Motion
that
s the
they
do
Tomorrow
From
is
Lea
mailto
Sent
going
Ann
thing
prevent
to
or us
ve
Stay
done
an Idaho
Pending
Hoping
like
Appeal
to
be able
stay from going
to
into
file
something
as soon
as possible
effect
be insane
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
May 18
have
Motion
not
am wondering
I
if
ve
2014
com
mailto
com mailto
LEaston
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
com
com
9 32 AM
Easton
LLP
for Emergency
drafted
they
intervene
Ann
Dorsay
doj state
Anna
Re
motion to
joyce
9 57 AM
for Emergency
Easton
Sunday
Subject
anna
2014
same
to
LEaston
Joyce
mailto
Easton
after
Lea
Sheila
for Emergency
May 18
Yeah
dorsayindianlaw
Ann
Joyce
No
LEaston
11 00 AM
crossed
Sent
To
19
Motion
From
To
Easton
May
is
have
Stay
barebones
to
wait til
interlocutory
Pending
Appeal
opposition
McShane
appeal
with holes
issues
so it
will
to
fill
his order
likely
in
though
be filed
because
tomorrow
appeal
at
of
12 02 pm
Suite
440
Portland
503
On
790
1 SW
OR
Columbia
97258
9060
May 18
2014
at
8 23 AM
Joyce
Anna
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
Have
you seen
From
Lea
Easton
LEaston
joyce
anna
doj state
joyce
or us
doj state
or us
wrote
Ann
anna
mailto
have
not
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
Friday
May 16
Sent
To
Joyce
Anna
2014
3 23 PM
mailto
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us mailto
com
com
mailto
com 3e
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
com
works
com 3e
mailto
lake
MIsaak
law
perkinscoie
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
katevts
law
multco us
m madkour
works
MIsaak
MIsaak
Potter
katevts
katevts
lake
works
law
com
com
perkinscoie
mailto
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e
Subject
I
it
RE
Motion
just spoke
Harris
From
Roger
Sent
Friday
To
anna
joyce
Harris
I
Stay
They
told
sberman
com
perkinscoie
com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
or org mailto
mailto
kdiaz
kdiaz
com mailto
org
stollberne
mailto
com
sberman
aclu
aclu
stollberne
or org
are working
on the
emergency
stay and
anticipate
com
3 19 PM
or us mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
com mailto
or us
or us 3e
com
mailto
com
mailto
com
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
multco us mailto
jenny
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
works
com
works
com 3e
mailto
Lea
lake
law
Ann
mailto
Easton
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
potter
doj state
law
m madkour
works
sheila
law
law
com
com mailto
m madkour
multco us
works
mailto
com
mailto
lake
law
perkinscoie
mailto
MIsaak
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
com mailto
TRJohnson
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
mailto
mailto
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
sberman
perkinscoie
org
stollberne
com
mailto
perkinscoie
org mailto
mailto
TRJohnson
com
perkinscoie
com
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
com mailto
law
com
or us
sheila
perkinscoie
lake
perkinscoie
mailto
TRJohnson
multco us
multco us
MIsaak
com
doj state
katevts
katevts
lake
works
perkinscoie
potter
jenny
multco us
mailto
com mailto
lake
MIsaak
mailto
multco us mailto
perkinscoie
mailto
or us mailto
multco us
multco us
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
jenny
katevts
katevts
com
MIsaak
m madkour
mailto
lake
works
mailto
sheila
filing
oppose
joyce
m madkour
com
Appeal
anna
jenny
com
or org
mary h williams msn
mailto
law
org
stollberne
or org
hbclawyers
lake
MIsaak
rsaxe aclu
com mailto
Pending
law
com
rsaxe aclu
roger
2014
doj state
aclu
aclu
org mailto
mary h williams msn
mailto
May 16
sberman
kdiaz
perkinscoie
mailto
stollberne
kdiaz
mailto
or tomorrow
rsaxe aclu
mailto
for Emergency
with Roger
later today
TRJohnson
com
com
sberman
mailto
lake
perkinscoie
org
com
com
mailto
TRJohnson
rsaxe aclu
multco us
multco us
works
mailto
mailto
m madkour
multco us
mailto
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
Sheila
TRJohnson
mailto
law
jenny
com
multco us
mailto
com mailto
lake
com mailto
mailto
multco us mailto
multco us
mailto
mailto
com mailto
jenny
katevts
com
mailto
m madkour
mailto
lake
works
mailto
jenny
mailto
com mailto
com
mailto
works
com
sberman
org
org
stollberne
com
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
Subject
Dear
NOM
Motion
mailto
for Emergency
anticipates
We
filing
will
a motion unless
kdiaz
Stay
Roger
HBC
Harris
Logo
and
1475
503
http
com
or org mailto
aclu
or org
Pending
Appeal
968
for Emergency
you advise
all
mailto
courtesies
and
mailto
kdiaz
kdiaz
sberman
aclu
aclu
stollberne
com
or org
or org
F 503
com
968
2003
http
com
com professionals
K VCFC
hbclawyers
Meadows
Users
under
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
Roger
596
www
roger
Roger
2910
com
k
20Harris
Harris
Suite
you have
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
oppose
Thank
you
hbclawyers
http
www
hbclawyers
harris
Documents
Users
Oswego
OR
vCard http
Add
20Harris
com
http
roger
www
in 20Express
Roger
hbclawyers
com
com professionals
3e
K VCFC
com http
hbclawyers
harris
hbclawyers
http
com vcard
http
Documents
keep
400
Lake
97035
NOTICE
e mail may contain
from disclosure
if
the
3e
Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
context
Bio http
com vcard
in 20Express
This
3e
D 503
hbclawyers
SW
call
of
object
consideration
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
5000
Appeal
litigation
Counselors
www
Roger
Please
Pending
sig
hbclawyers
Harris
Stay
parties in the
me otherwise
www
Add
stollberne
aclu
P C
Color
Attorneys
a Motion
assume that
www
sberman
kdiaz
Counsel
Intervention
such
mailto
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 1 08 25
Subject
Re
and leave
will call
my
Sheila
Motion
H
PM
Emergency
for
Stay Pending
Appeal
address for you
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
1 07
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Deal
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Trial
On May
19
LEaston
Why
don
2014
at
Justice
1 01
PM
dorsayindianlaw
we
hang
at
Lea Ann Easton
com
my house
mailto LEaston
see
if
Anna
dorsayindianlaw
Mary want
or
to
come
com
too
wrote
am
going to see
if
CP
will
come up
Lea Ann
On May
sheila
19
potter
And
Yes
Sheila
2014
Deputy
at
1 00
doj state or us
Potter Sheila
wrote
doj state or us
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Trial
On May
19
LEaston
2014
at
Justice
12 59
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
Can
PM
PM
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Lea Ann
On May
sheila
The
19
2014
potter
conclusion
again
It
at
12 52
PM
doj state or us
made me
so good
all
Potter Sheila
teary
and then
read
it
doj state or us
from the
start
doj state or us
me
all
teary
all
wrote
over
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On May
19
LEaston
2014
at
12 50
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
Wow
Justice
PM
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
wrote
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
Seems
11 54
Anna
Joyce
anna joyce
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
likely
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
doj state or us
May
Monday
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
2014 11 51
dorsayindianlaw
com
AM
Anna
Sheila
Re
Will they
19
mailto LEaston
with Supreme Court
file
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
11 11
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
May
Monday
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
AM
19
Anna
Joyce
doj state or us
mailto LEaston
2014 11 10
anna joyce
mailto anna joyce
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
com
AM
Anna
Sheila
Re
9th circuit denied
it
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
Yes indeed
11 00
To
May
Monday
Joyce
Subject
Anna
RE
Joyce
doj state or us
19
Potter
mailto LEaston
2014 11 00
Sheila
Anna
anna joyce
mailto anna joyce
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
that
can be and
dorsayindianlaw
AM
doj state or us
doj state or us
am
occasionally
com
mailto anna joyce
wrote
forgetting
to breathe
doj state or us
com
Fingers crossed
Lea Ann
From
mailto anna joyce
May
18
Yeah
RE
that s
an Idaho
like
Tomorrow
am
after
they do
to prevent
dorsayindianlaw
com
18
2014 9 32
com
mailto LEaston
mailto LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
dorsayindianlaw
AM
have not
file
Anna
Re
Subject
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
May
Sunday
Joyce
to be able to
going to be insane
is
mailto LEaston
Sent
Hoping
From Lea Ann Easton
No
doj state or us
AM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
2014 9 57
wondering
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
it
will likely
til
be
with holes to
in
tomorrow
filed
fill
To
Anna
Joyce
Sunday
Sent
at
12 02
is
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
LLP
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
Have you
8 23
AM
From Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
To
Friday
Joyce
May
Anna
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
anna joyce
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto LEaston
Sent
Anna
Joyce
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
3e
doj state or us
wrote
have not
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
com
justicelawyers
mailto jmiddleton
com
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
com
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
com
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
com
us
multco us
multco us
works com
MIsaak
mailto lake
perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
Potter
Sheila
3e
katevts
lake
com
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
mailto lake
mailto lake
perkinscoie
com
mailto katevts
mailto lake
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
com
multco us
law works com
law works com
com
multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
law works com
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
3e
law works com
com
3e

multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
com
mailto jenny
multco us
mailto katevts
3e
justicelawyers
justicelawyers
m madkour multco
com
PM
mailto jmiddleton
jenny
doj state or us
com
law
law works com
perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
mailto lake
3e
com
perkinscoie
com
3e
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
rsaxe
aclu org
mailto rsaxe
mailto rsaxe
aclu org
3e
aclu org
mailto sberman
stollberne
com
mailto sberman
stollberne
com
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org
williams
msn com
williams
msn com
mailto rsaxe
mailto sberman
com
stollberne
aclu or org
aclu or org
mailto mary h
mailto mary h
RE
kdiaz
aclu org
com
mailto sberman
3e
mailto mary h
Subject
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
msn com
mary h williams
mailto rsaxe
sberman
mailto mary h
mailto sberman
mailto kdiaz
stollberne
aclu or org
Harris mailto roger
Sent
May
Friday
joyce
16 2014 3 19
hbclawyers
msn com
williams
com
justicelawyers
com
justicelawyers
com
multco us
katevts
mailto
multco us
mailto
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
doj state or us
doj state or us
sheila
multco us
mailto lake
law works com

perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
com
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto rsaxe
aclu org
3e
aclu org
mailto sberman
stollberne
com
mailto sberman
stollberne
com
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
sberman
stollberne
mailto sberman
3e
kdiaz
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
com
stollberne
aclu or org
aclu or org
com
aclu org
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
com
mailto rsaxe
aclu org
com
mailto sberman
mailto kdiaz
doj state or us
perkinscoie
3e
mailto rsaxe
mailto sberman
doj state or us
perkinscoie
law
com
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
mailto TRJohnson
aclu org
mailto lake
com
doj state or us
perkinscoie
law works com
mailto lake
mailto MIsaak
com
multco us
mailto katevts
law works com
mailto TRJohnson
mailto rsaxe
multco us
3e
multco us
doj state or us
TRJohnson
m madkour
mailto jenny
multco us
perkinscoie
potter
3e
com
com
multco us
lake
com
3e
justicelawyers
3e
perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
3e
justicelawyers
law works com
mailto lake
Lea Ann Easton
3e
doj state or us
mailto jmiddleton
mailto katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
law works com
mailto lake
works com
mailto anna joyce
m madkour
jenny m madkour
jenny m madkour
multco us
mailto katevts
doj state or us
com
jenny
multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
today or
later
doj state or us
justicelawyers
mailto jmiddleton
3e
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
mailto jmiddleton
m madkour
m madkour
it
com
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jenny
filing
PM
doj state or us
justicelawyers
mailto jenny
msn com
williams
oppose
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce

jmiddleton
aclu or org
From Roger
To anna
com
mailto kdiaz
3e
aclu org
3e
aclu or org
mailto mary h
mailto rsaxe
com
just
tomorrow
rsaxe
aclu org
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
msn com
williams
3e
aclu or org
stollberne
com
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org
3e
aclu or org
Subject
Dear Counsel
NOM
assume
Please
anticipates
that
call
Roger
HBC
all
parties in

the litigation
if
filing
Harris
Logo Color
Deny
ing Intervention
me
We
will
otherwise
consideration
C
sig
503 968 1475
hbclawyers
Bio
k
http
harris
com
www
3e
F 503 968 2003

http
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
vCard
http
com
503 596 2910
com
http
professionals
www
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
www
roger k harris
com
com
hbclawyers
http
http
com
www
vcard Harris Roger
hbclawyers
http
www
hbclawyers
K VCFC
com
http
hbclawyers
com
com
professionals
Users Roger
20Harris
3e
roger
Documents Add
in
20Express
Documents Add
in
20Express
5000
SW
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
Suite 400
If
e mail in error
please advise
hbclawyers
Lake Oswego
com
K VCFC
vcard Harris Roger
Users Roger
20Harris
OR
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
www
http
3e
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
5 19 2014 3 48 24
Subject
RE
le
you voice mail at Portland
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Sheila
H
PM
Stay Pending
Appeal
Oce
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
May 19 2014 1 08 PM
Monday
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Re
Stay Pending Appeal
Deal
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Trial
On May
19
LEaston
Why
don
2014
at
Justice
1 01
PM
dorsayindianlaw
we
hang
at
Lea Ann Easton
com
my house
mailto LEaston
see
if
Anna
dorsayindianlaw
Mary want
or
to
come
com
too
wrote
am
going to see
if
CP
will
come up
Lea Ann
On May
sheila
19
potter
And
Yes
Sheila
2014
Deputy
at
1 00
doj state or us
Potter Sheila
wrote
doj state or us
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
Trial
On May
19
LEaston
2014
at
Justice
12 59
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
Can
PM
PM
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Lea Ann
On May
sheila
The
19
2014
potter
conclusion
again
It
at
12 52
PM
doj state or us
made me
so good
all
Potter Sheila
teary
and then
read
it
doj state or us
from the
start
doj state or us
me
all
teary
all
wrote
over
Sheila
Deputy
Trial
Potter
Chief Counsel
Division
On May
19
LEaston
2014
at
12 50
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
Wow
Justice
PM
Lea Ann Easton
com
mailto LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
wrote
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
Seems
11 54
Anna
Joyce
anna joyce
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
likely
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
doj state or us
May
Monday
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
2014 11 51
dorsayindianlaw
com
AM
Anna
Sheila
Re
Will they
19
mailto LEaston
with Supreme Court
file
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
11 11
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
May
Monday
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
AM
19
Anna
Joyce
doj state or us
mailto LEaston
2014 11 10
anna joyce
mailto anna joyce
dorsayindianlaw
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
wrote
doj state or us
com
AM
Anna
Sheila
Re
9th circuit denied
it
Lea Ann
On May
19
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
Yes indeed
11 00
To
May
Monday
Joyce
Subject
Anna
RE
Joyce
doj state or us
19
Potter
mailto LEaston
2014 11 00
Sheila
Anna
anna joyce
mailto anna joyce
From Lea Ann Easton

Sent
AM
that
can be and
dorsayindianlaw
AM
doj state or us
doj state or us
am
occasionally
com
mailto anna joyce
wrote
forgetting
to breathe
doj state or us
com
Fingers crossed
Lea Ann
From
mailto anna joyce
May
18
Yeah
RE
that s
an Idaho
like
Tomorrow
am
after
they do
to prevent
dorsayindianlaw
com
18
2014 9 32
com
mailto LEaston
mailto LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
com
dorsayindianlaw
AM
have not
file
Anna
Re
Subject
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
May
Sunday
Joyce
to be able to
going to be insane
is
mailto LEaston
Sent
Hoping
From Lea Ann Easton
No
doj state or us
AM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
2014 9 57
wondering
opposition
they have to wait
McShane
if
so
it
will likely
til
be
with holes to
in
tomorrow
filed
fill
To
Anna
Joyce
Sunday
Sent
at
12 02
is
pm
Lea Ann
Dorsay
Easton
Suite 440
SW
OR
Portland
LLP
Columbia
97258
503 790 9060
On May
18
2014
at
mailto anna joyce
Have you
8 23
AM
From Lea Ann Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
To
Friday
Joyce
May
Anna
16 2014 3 23
jmiddleton
anna joyce
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto LEaston
Sent
Anna
Joyce
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
3e
doj state or us
wrote
have not
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
com
mailto LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
com
justicelawyers
mailto jmiddleton
com
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
com
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
com
mailto jmiddleton
justicelawyers
com
us
multco us
multco us
works com
MIsaak
mailto lake
perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
Potter
Sheila
3e
katevts
lake
com
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
mailto lake
mailto lake
perkinscoie
com
mailto katevts
mailto lake
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
com
multco us
law works com
law works com
com
multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
law works com
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
TRJohnson
multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
3e
law works com
com
3e

multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
com
mailto jenny
multco us
mailto katevts
3e
justicelawyers
justicelawyers
m madkour multco
com
PM
mailto jmiddleton
jenny
doj state or us
com
law
law works com
perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
mailto lake
3e
com
perkinscoie
com
3e
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
rsaxe
aclu org
mailto rsaxe
mailto rsaxe
aclu org
3e
aclu org
mailto sberman
stollberne
com
mailto sberman
stollberne
com
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org
williams
msn com
williams
msn com
mailto rsaxe
mailto sberman
com
stollberne
aclu or org
aclu or org
mailto mary h
mailto mary h
RE
kdiaz
aclu org
com
mailto sberman
3e
mailto mary h
Subject
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
msn com
mary h williams
mailto rsaxe
sberman
mailto mary h
mailto sberman
mailto kdiaz
stollberne
aclu or org
Harris mailto roger
Sent
May
Friday
joyce
16 2014 3 19
hbclawyers
msn com
williams
com
justicelawyers
com
justicelawyers
com
multco us
katevts
mailto
multco us
mailto
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
doj state or us
doj state or us
sheila
multco us
mailto lake
law works com

perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
com
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
perkinscoie
com
mailto TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto rsaxe
aclu org
3e
aclu org
mailto sberman
stollberne
com
mailto sberman
stollberne
com
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org
mailto rsaxe
sberman
stollberne
mailto sberman
3e
kdiaz
mailto kdiaz
aclu org
com
stollberne
aclu or org
aclu or org
com
aclu org
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
com
mailto rsaxe
aclu org
com
mailto sberman
mailto kdiaz
doj state or us
perkinscoie
3e
mailto rsaxe
mailto sberman
doj state or us
perkinscoie
law
com
perkinscoie
mailto TRJohnson
mailto TRJohnson
aclu org
mailto lake
com
doj state or us
perkinscoie
law works com
mailto lake
mailto MIsaak
com
multco us
mailto katevts
law works com
mailto TRJohnson
mailto rsaxe
multco us
3e
multco us
doj state or us
TRJohnson
m madkour
mailto jenny
multco us
perkinscoie
potter
3e
com
com
multco us
lake
com
3e
justicelawyers
3e
perkinscoie
mailto MIsaak
3e
justicelawyers
law works com
mailto lake
Lea Ann Easton
3e
doj state or us
mailto jmiddleton
mailto katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
law works com
mailto lake
works com
mailto anna joyce
m madkour
jenny m madkour
jenny m madkour
multco us
mailto katevts
doj state or us
com
jenny
multco us
multco us
mailto katevts
today or
later
doj state or us
justicelawyers
mailto jmiddleton
3e
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce
mailto jmiddleton
m madkour
m madkour
it
com
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jmiddleton
mailto jenny
filing
PM
doj state or us
justicelawyers
mailto jenny
msn com
williams
oppose
mailto anna joyce
doj state or us
mailto anna joyce

jmiddleton
aclu or org
From Roger
To anna
com
mailto kdiaz
3e
aclu org
3e
aclu or org
mailto mary h
mailto rsaxe
com
just
tomorrow
rsaxe
aclu org
stollberne
mailto kdiaz
msn com
williams
3e
aclu or org
stollberne
com
mailto kdiaz
aclu or org
3e
aclu or org
Subject
Dear Counsel
NOM
assume
Please
anticipates
that
call
Roger
HBC
all
parties in

the litigation
if
filing
Harris
Logo Color
Deny
ing Intervention
me
We
will
otherwise
consideration
C
sig
503 968 1475
hbclawyers
Bio
k
http
harris
com
www
3e
F 503 968 2003

http
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
vCard
http
com
503 596 2910
com
http
professionals
www
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
www
roger k harris
com
com
hbclawyers
http
http
com
www
vcard Harris Roger
hbclawyers
http
www
hbclawyers
K VCFC
com
http
hbclawyers
com
com
professionals
Users Roger
20Harris
3e
roger
Documents Add
in
20Express
Documents Add
in
20Express
5000
SW
Meadows Road
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
This e mail
Suite 400
If
e mail in error
please advise
hbclawyers
Lake Oswego
com
K VCFC
vcard Harris Roger
Users Roger
20Harris
OR
97035
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
www
http
3e
me
is
privileged
or
it
appears
confidential
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 19 2014 3 50 22
Subject
Re
Thank
Sheila
Motion
for
PM
Emergency
Stay Pending
Appeal
you
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
I
left
2014
at
Justice
3 48 PM
dorsayindianlaw
you voice
From
Potter
Sent
Monday
To
of
Lea
Ann
Subject
Re
mail at
Sheila
May
Lea
Portland
mailto
19
Ann
com mailto
2014
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Office
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
1 08 PM
Easton
Motion
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Deal
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
mailto
Why
Lea
On
at
Justice
1 01 PM
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
don
will
2014
of
we
come
up
Lea
dorsayindianlaw
hang
at
Ann
com mailto
my house
Easton
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto
see if
Anna
LEaston
or Mary
com
dorsayindianlaw
want
to
come
too
com 3e 3e
wrote
to
see if
or us 3e 3e
wrote
am going
Ann
May 19
2014
at
1 00 PM
sheila
potter
doj state
mailto
sheila
potter
Yes
And
then
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
can
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
doj state
sheila
or us
potter
mailto
doj state
sheila
potter
or us
doj state
buy you one
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
2014
of
at
Justice
12 59 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
com mailto
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
Can
Lea
Ann
On
buy you glass
May 19
2014
at
of
Ann
Easton
LEaston
mailto
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
mailto
LEaston
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
wine
com
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e 3e
wrote
tonight
12 52 PM
sheila
potter
doj state
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
mailto
doj state
sheila
sheila
potter
potter
or us
doj state
doj state
or us 3e
or us 3e 3e
wrote
CP
The
conclusion
me all
teary
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
made
all
me all
over
teary
again
It
and
then
read
it
from the
start
and
the
conclusion
s so good
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
2014
of
at
Justice
12 50 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
Ann
com mailto
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
Wow
Did
Lea
On
you read
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e 3e
opinion
Ann
May 19
anna
2014
joyce
at
11 54 AM
doj state
Joyce
or us mailto
Anna
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
Seems
likely
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
Will
Lea
On
Easton
mailto
May
2014
19
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
com
11 51 AM
Sheila
Re
Motion
file
for Emergency
with Supreme
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Court
Ann
May 19
2014
joyce
at
11 11 AM
doj state
Joyce
or us mailto
Anna
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
mailto
2014
19
Sheila
Re
circuit
Lea
Ann
May 19
anna
Easton
May
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
com
11 10 AM
Motion
denied
2014
joyce
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
it
at
11 00 AM
doj state
Joyce
or us mailto
Anna
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
Yes indeed
ve
got
everything
mailto
crossed
anna
that
can
joyce
be
doj state
and
breathe
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Joyce
Subject
wrote
Anna
9th
To
wrote
Anna
they
anna
On
wrote
Ann
Anna
RE
Easton
mailto
May
2014
19
Potter
Motion
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
11 00 AM
Sheila
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
com
or us 3e 3e
am occasionally
wrote
forgetting
to
made
Fingers
Lea
crossed
Ann
From
Joyce
Sent
Sunday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Anna
Motion
that
s the
after
they
do
From
is
Lea
anna
2014
joyce
doj state
or us
9 57 AM
Easton
Yeah
Tomorrow
mailto
May 18
same
to
thing
prevent
going
Ann
for Emergency
to
ve
Stay
Pending
done
an Idaho
Hoping
like
Appeal
to
be able
stay from going
to
file
into
something
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
To
Sunday
Joyce
Subject
No
May 18
have
motion to
Lea
9 32 AM
Motion
not
for Emergency
ve
if
drafted
they
intervene
is
have
Stay
Pending
barebones
to
opposition
wait til
interlocutory
Appeal
McShane
appeal
with holes
issues
so it
to
fill
his order
will
likely
in
though
because
be filed
tomorrow
appeal
at
of
12 02 pm
Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
503
On
2014
com
Anna
Re
am wondering
as possible
be insane
mailto
Sent
as soon
effect
790
LLP
1 SW
OR
Columbia
97258
9060
May 18
2014
at
8 23 AM
Joyce
Anna
anna
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
wrote
From
Lea
Ann

Easton
LEaston
have
joyce
or us
joyce
you seen
anna
doj state
anna
Have
mailto
joyce
mailto
doj state
or us
not
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
Friday
May 16
Sent
To
Joyce
Anna
2014
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e 3e
3 23 PM
com mailto
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com 3e
jenny
m madkour
multco us mailto
jenny
mailto
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com
com
mailto
katevts
mailto
mailto
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
lake
lake
com 3e 3e
m madkour
katevts
katevts
multco us
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
multco us 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
law
law
works
works
com mailto
com 3e
lake
mailto
law
lake
multco us
multco us
mailto
katevts
katevts
multco us mailto
com
works
com
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
mailto
mailto
lake
lake
MIsaak
com mailto
law
law
works
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
com 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
perkinscoie
mailto
MIsaak
TRJohnson
com mailto
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e 3e
mailto
Potter
TRJohnson
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
or org mailto
kdiaz
mailto
rsaxe aclu
mailto
mailto
aclu
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
sberman
or org
rsaxe aclu
org
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
org 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
stollberne
mailto
mailto
sberman
kdiaz
aclu
stollberne
aclu
or org
or org 3e
kdiaz
aclu
or org
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e 3e
mary h williams msn
com
sberman
aclu
or org
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
mary h williams msn
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e 3e
I
it
Motion
just spoke
with Roger
later today
Harris
Roger
Sent
Friday
anna
Harris
or tomorrow
From
To
for Emergency
mailto
May 16
joyce
doj state
They
told
roger
2014
Stay
Pending
are working
on the
emergency
stay and
anticipate
com
3 19 PM
or us mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
com mailto
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
com
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com 3e
jenny
m madkour
multco us mailto
jenny
mailto
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e 3e
MIsaak
mailto
perkinscoie
MIsaak
mailto
mailto
mailto
Lea
MIsaak
com 3e
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
multco us 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
works
works
law
law
com 3e
works
lake
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
com 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
works
Easton
perkinscoie
mailto
com mailto
MIsaak
multco us
multco us
multco us
law
Ann
katevts
katevts
lake
lake
com 3e 3e
m madkour
mailto
law
lake
multco us mailto
multco us 3e
katevts
katevts
lake
mailto
katevts
katevts
mailto
mailto
com mailto
perkinscoie
filing
oppose
mailto
com
Appeal

hbclawyers
aclu
or org 3e
kdiaz
mailto
RE
aclu
mailto
com 3e
com
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
org
kdiaz
kdiaz
mailto
Subject
Sheila
perkinscoie
stollberne
com 3e 3e
mailto
mailto
com mailto
kdiaz
com mailto
mailto
mary h williams msn
mailto
rsaxe aclu
mailto
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
org mailto
com
com
mailto
perkinscoie
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e 3e
sheila
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
mailto
TRJohnson
sheila
perkinscoie
potter
com
doj state
mailto
or us 3e 3e
TRJohnson
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
or org mailto
kdiaz
mailto
rsaxe aclu
mailto
mailto
aclu
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
sberman
or org
rsaxe aclu
org
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
org 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
stollberne
mailto
mailto
sberman
kdiaz
aclu
or org
aclu
or org
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e 3e
Dear
NOM
Pending
aclu
com
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
Appeal
Counsel
anticipates
Intervention
such
Stay
or org 3e
kdiaz
kdiaz
com
org
stollberne
com 3e 3e
mailto
kdiaz
for Emergency
aclu
sberman
stollberne
mailto
Motion
kdiaz
com mailto
mailto
Subject
mailto
rsaxe aclu
mailto
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
org mailto
perkinscoie
We
filing
will
a motion unless
you advise

Roger
HBC
Harris
Logo
and
1475
503
http
968
F 503
com
968
com
http
hbclawyers
com
3e 3e
hbclawyers
3e 3e
Roger
K VCFC
Harris
5000
roger
vCard http
Add
Roger
Roger
K VCFC
Meadows
This
context
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
call
if
of
the
object
you have
http
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
keep
roger
oppose
Thank
Add
20Harris
400
Lake
3e
http
you
hbclawyers
Harris
Roger
www
Documents
OR
3e
Add
http
www
K VCFC
Harris
hbclawyers
3e
http
in 20Express
roger
http
harris
Roger
K VCFC
com vcard
www
3e
hbclawyers
Users
Roger
com
roger
com professionals
com vcard
in 20Express
Oswego
www
com
http
com professionals
harris
http
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
in 20Express
Roger
3e
com http
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com vcard
Documents
Suite
com
www
www
hbclawyers
http
www
http
hbclawyers
Add
Users
com
harris
20Harris
Users
Harris
hbclawyers
Roger
com vcard
3e 3e
97035
NOTICE
e mail may contain

under
hbclawyers
3e
2910
com
Bio http
20Harris
CONFIDENTIALITY
596
com professionals
www
Road
D 503
www
harris
Documents
Users
from disclosure
Appeal
litigation
consideration
hbclawyers
in 20Express
20Harris
SW
2003
http
hbclawyers
Documents
Please
Pending
Counselors
www
www
and
Stay
parties in the
me otherwise
courtesies
www
http
all
sig
hbclawyers
professionals
for Emergency
P C
Color
Attorneys
a Motion
assume that
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 19 2014 4 24 54
Subject
Re
Will
see you a little
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Sheila
Motion
for
after
PM
Emergency
Stay Pending
Appeal
6 30
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
I
left
2014
at
Justice
3 48 PM
dorsayindianlaw
you voice
From
Potter
Sent
Monday
To
of
Lea
Ann
Subject
Re
mail at
Sheila
May
Lea
Portland
mailto
19
Ann
com mailto
2014
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
Office
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
1 08 PM
Easton
Motion
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Deal
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
mailto
Why
Lea
On
at
Justice
1 01 PM
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
don
will
2014
of
we
come
up
Lea
dorsayindianlaw
hang
at
Ann
com mailto
my house
Easton
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
mailto
see if
Anna
LEaston
or Mary
com
dorsayindianlaw
want
to
come
too
com 3e 3e
wrote
to
see if
or us 3e 3e
wrote
am going
Ann
May 19
2014
at
1 00 PM
sheila
potter
doj state
mailto
sheila
potter
Yes
And
then
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
can
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
doj state
sheila
or us
potter
mailto
doj state
sheila
potter
or us
doj state
buy you one
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
2014
of
at
Justice
12 59 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
com mailto
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
Can
Lea
Ann
On
buy you glass
May 19
2014
at
of
Ann
Easton
LEaston
mailto
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
mailto
LEaston
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sheila
potter
wine
com
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e 3e
wrote
tonight
12 52 PM
sheila
potter
doj state
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
mailto
doj state
sheila
sheila
potter
potter
or us
doj state
doj state
or us 3e
or us 3e 3e
wrote
CP
The
conclusion
me all
teary
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
made
all
me all
over
teary
again
It
and
then
read
it
from the
start
and
the
conclusion
s so good
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
May 19
LEaston
2014
of
at
Justice
12 50 PM
dorsayindianlaw
Lea
Ann
com mailto
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
Wow
Did
Lea
On
you read
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e 3e
opinion
Ann
May 19
anna
2014
joyce
at
11 54 AM
doj state
Joyce
or us mailto
Anna
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
Seems
likely
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
Will
Lea
On
Easton
mailto
May
2014
19
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
com
11 51 AM
Sheila
Re
Motion
file
for Emergency
with Supreme
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Court
Ann
May 19
2014
joyce
at
11 11 AM
doj state
Joyce
or us mailto
Anna
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
To
Joyce
Cc
Potter
Subject
mailto
2014
19
Sheila
Re
circuit
Lea
Ann
May 19
anna
Easton
May
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
com
11 10 AM
Motion
denied
2014
joyce
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
it
at
11 00 AM
doj state
Joyce
or us mailto
Anna
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
Yes indeed
ve
got
everything
mailto
crossed
anna
that
can
joyce
be
doj state
and
breathe
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
Joyce
Subject
wrote
Anna
9th
To
wrote
Anna
they
anna
On
wrote
Ann
Anna
RE
Easton
mailto
May
2014
19
Potter
Motion
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
11 00 AM
Sheila
for Emergency
Stay
Pending
Appeal
com
or us 3e 3e
am occasionally
wrote
forgetting
to
made
Fingers
Lea
crossed
Ann
From
Joyce
Sent
Sunday
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Anna
Motion
that
s the
after
they
do
From
is
Lea
anna
2014
joyce
doj state
or us
9 57 AM
Easton
Yeah
Tomorrow
mailto
May 18
same
to
thing
prevent
going
Ann
for Emergency
to
ve
Stay
Pending
done
an Idaho
Hoping
like
Appeal
to
be able
stay from going
to
file
into
something
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
To
Sunday
Joyce
Subject
No
May 18
have
motion to
Lea
9 32 AM
Motion
not
for Emergency
ve
if
drafted
they
intervene
is
have
Stay
Pending
barebones
to
opposition
wait til
interlocutory
Appeal
McShane
appeal
with holes
issues
so it
to
fill
his order
will
likely
in
though
because
be filed
tomorrow
appeal
at
of
12 02 pm
Ann
Dorsay
Suite
Easton
440
Portland
503
On
2014
com
Anna
Re
am wondering
as possible
be insane
mailto
Sent
as soon
effect
790
LLP
1 SW
OR
Columbia
97258
9060
May 18
2014
at
8 23 AM
Joyce
Anna
anna
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
wrote
From
Lea
Ann

Easton
LEaston
have
joyce
or us
joyce
you seen
anna
doj state
anna
Have
mailto
joyce
mailto
doj state
or us
not
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e
Friday
May 16
Sent
To
Joyce
Anna
2014
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com 3e 3e
3 23 PM
com mailto
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com 3e
jenny
m madkour
multco us mailto
jenny
mailto
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com
com
mailto
katevts
mailto
mailto
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
lake
lake
com 3e 3e
m madkour
katevts
katevts
multco us
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
multco us 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
law
law
works
works
com mailto
com 3e
lake
mailto
law
lake
multco us
multco us
mailto
katevts
katevts
multco us mailto
com
works
com
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
mailto
mailto
lake
lake
MIsaak
com mailto
law
law
works
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
com 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
perkinscoie
mailto
MIsaak
TRJohnson
com mailto
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e 3e
mailto
Potter
TRJohnson
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
or org mailto
kdiaz
mailto
rsaxe aclu
mailto
mailto
aclu
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
sberman
or org
rsaxe aclu
org
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
org 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
stollberne
mailto
mailto
sberman
kdiaz
aclu
stollberne
aclu
or org
or org 3e
kdiaz
aclu
or org
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e 3e
mary h williams msn
com
sberman
aclu
or org
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
mary h williams msn
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e
mailto
mary h williams msn
com 3e 3e
I
it
Motion
just spoke
with Roger
later today
Harris
Roger
Sent
Friday
anna
Harris
or tomorrow
From
To
for Emergency
mailto
May 16
joyce
doj state
They
told
roger
2014
Stay
Pending
are working
on the
emergency
stay and
anticipate
com
3 19 PM
or us mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e
com mailto
mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us 3e 3e
com
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com
mailto
com 3e
mailto
com 3e
jenny
m madkour
multco us mailto
jenny
mailto
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us 3e 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e 3e
MIsaak
mailto
perkinscoie
MIsaak
mailto
mailto
mailto
Lea
MIsaak
com 3e
multco us
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
multco us 3e
mailto
katevts
multco us 3e
works
works
law
law
com 3e
works
lake
law
works
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com
com
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
com 3e
mailto
lake
law
works
com 3e
works
Easton
perkinscoie
mailto
com mailto
MIsaak
multco us
multco us
multco us
law
Ann
katevts
katevts
lake
lake
com 3e 3e
m madkour
mailto
law
lake
multco us mailto
multco us 3e
katevts
katevts
lake
mailto
katevts
katevts
mailto
mailto
com mailto
perkinscoie
filing
oppose
mailto
com
Appeal

hbclawyers
aclu
or org 3e
kdiaz
mailto
RE
aclu
mailto
com 3e
com
com
mailto
mary h williams msn
org
kdiaz
kdiaz
mailto
Subject
Sheila
perkinscoie
stollberne
com 3e 3e
mailto
mailto
com mailto
kdiaz
com mailto
mailto
mary h williams msn
mailto
rsaxe aclu
mailto
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
org mailto
com
com
mailto
perkinscoie
MIsaak
com
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
MIsaak
perkinscoie
com 3e 3e
sheila
potter
doj state
or us mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
mailto
sheila
potter
doj state
or us 3e
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
mailto
TRJohnson
sheila
perkinscoie
potter
com
doj state
mailto
or us 3e 3e
TRJohnson
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com 3e 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
mailto
sberman
stollberne
com 3e
or org mailto
kdiaz
mailto
rsaxe aclu
mailto
mailto
aclu
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
sberman
or org
rsaxe aclu
org
org
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
org 3e
mailto
rsaxe aclu
org 3e
stollberne
mailto
mailto
sberman
kdiaz
aclu
or org
aclu
or org
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e 3e
Dear
NOM
Pending
aclu
com
aclu
or org 3e
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org 3e
Appeal
Counsel
anticipates
Intervention
such
Stay
or org 3e
kdiaz
kdiaz
com
org
stollberne
com 3e 3e
mailto
kdiaz
for Emergency
aclu
sberman
stollberne
mailto
Motion
kdiaz
com mailto
mailto
Subject
mailto
rsaxe aclu
mailto
rsaxe aclu
rsaxe aclu
org mailto
perkinscoie
We
filing
will
a motion unless
you advise

Roger
HBC
Harris
Logo
and
1475
503
http
968
F 503
com
968
com
http
hbclawyers
com
3e 3e
hbclawyers
3e 3e
Roger
K VCFC
Harris
5000
roger
vCard http
Add
Roger
Roger
K VCFC
Meadows
This
context
or otherwise
by reply e mail
attachments
call
if
of
the
object
you have
http
to
Order
Denying
or otherwise
any questions
keep
roger
oppose
Thank
Add
20Harris
400
Lake
3e
http
you
hbclawyers
Harris
Roger
www
Documents
OR
3e
Add
http
www
K VCFC
Harris
hbclawyers
3e
http
in 20Express
roger
http
harris
Roger
K VCFC
com vcard
www
3e
hbclawyers
Users
Roger
com
roger
com professionals
com vcard
in 20Express
Oswego
www
com
http
com professionals
harris
http
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
in 20Express
Roger
3e
com http
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com vcard
Documents
Suite
com
www
www
hbclawyers
http
www
http
hbclawyers
Add
Users
com
harris
20Harris
Users
Harris
hbclawyers
Roger
com vcard
3e 3e
97035
NOTICE
e mail may contain

under
hbclawyers
3e
2910
com
Bio http
20Harris
CONFIDENTIALITY
596
com professionals
www
Road
D 503
www
harris
Documents
Users
from disclosure
Appeal
litigation
consideration
hbclawyers
in 20Express
20Harris
SW
2003
http
hbclawyers
Documents
Please
Pending
Counselors
www
www
and
Stay
parties in the
me otherwise
courtesies
www
http
all
sig
hbclawyers
professionals
for Emergency
P C
Color
Attorneys
a Motion
assume that
information
applicable
law
that
If
is
that
you have
received
the
contents
confidential
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee

and
immediately
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
delete
the
exempt
from the
me immediately
message
and
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Misha Isaak
Sent
5 20 2014 8 53 44
Subject
GENDER
Attachments
Order pdf
mary h
McShane chose to refer

It is a more inclusive
Huge
gratitude
vision
and
defending
to
work
the
State
williams
Sheila
Diaz
kdiaz
msn com
Jennifer
Middleton
aclu or org
Tom
Johnson
JMiddleton
Joyce Anna
justicelawyers
com
Mary Williams
Amanda Goad
agoad
aclu org
AM
ORDER
to
same gender
order because of
everyone
and
Potter
Kevin
who
advanced
intelligence
s position
of
the
Sheila
throughout his opinion

this choice
this case
and
incredible
women who
Mary
Anna
and
and
especially
looked
our AG
the
Order
today
to
Ellen
the
appreciate
the
US Constitution
Thank
you
in
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DEANNA
GEIGER
and JANINE
Case
=
and
No 613cv01834MC
lead case
WILLIAM GRIESER
ORDER
Plaintiffs
JOHN KITZHABER
as
Governor
of
ROSENBLUM
State
in
her official
in
Oregon
WALRUFF
her official
Authority and
in his
official
capacity
Defendants
ORDER
as
as
Statistics
RANDY
capacity
capacity
Oregon JENNIFER
Registrar Center for Health

Health
capacity
Oregon ELLEN
Attorney General of
WOODWARD
in his official
as
PAUL RUMMELL
LISA
BENJAMIN
and
CHICKADONZ
WEST
No 613cv02256MC
Case
and CHRISTINE
trailing
case
TANNER BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION
FUND
Plaintiffs
JOHN KITZHABER
as
Governor
of
ROSENBLUM
State
her official
in
Oregon JENNIFER
her official
in
WALRUFF
Authority and
in his
as
capacity
official
as
capacity
Oregon Health
capacity
Oregon ELLEN
Attorney General of
WOODWARD
in his official
Statistics
RANDY
capacity as
Defendants
MCSHANE
Judge
The Court having considered
ECF Nos
23 and
42
arguments made by
Nos
66 70 and
privileges
all
Defendants
parties
is
no
responsibilities
judgment
Summary Judgment
64
48 and
ORDER
oral
ECF
of Plaintiffs
interest that
would
justify the
rights benefits protections
to
couples solely on the basis that those couples are of the same gender
the
by amicus
the briefs filed
in favor
legitimate state
attendant
for
ECF Nos
on April 23 2014 and
finds that there
obligations
Motions
Plaintiffs
Responses
79 GRANTS summary
The Court
denial of the full
the
the
samegender
NOW
THEREFORE
The Court
filed
by
GRANTS
the plaintiffs
the
DECLARES
and
violate
the
also
5A
of the
DECLARES
Equal Protection
that
it
are
is
23 and
42
cases
15
section
5A
of the
that as such
agents and employees
enforcing Article 15 section
The Court
Summary Judgment ECF Nos
that Article
Constitution violates
their officers
for
in each of the consolidated
The Court hereby
and
Motions
Oregon
Amendment
PERMANENTLY
to the
Defendants
ENJOINED
from
Oregon Constitution
ORS 106010 ORS 1060411 and ORS 1061501
Clause and are unenforceable
to the
extent that they
would
prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same gender or would deny
samegender couples
the right to
rights benefits privileges
where
law
the couple
ENJOINED from
rule regulation
otherwise
ORDER
their officers
enforcing
to
qualified to
agents
attendant
marry under Oregon
and employees
are
PERMANENTLY
or applying those statutesor any other state or local
or ordinanceas
qualified
full
obligations responsibilities
would be otherwise
and
Defendants
marry with
marry
in
the basis to
Oregon
deny marriage
to
law
samegender couples
or to deny married samegender couples any of
the rights benefits

privileges
accompany marriage
The Court
in
obligations responsibilities
and immunities
that
Oregon
DECLARES
that the
Equal Protection
Clause requires recognition of
marriages of samegender couples legally performed in other jurisdictions where
marriages are in
law
all
other respects
rule regulation
valid
or ordinance
under Oregon law an d
Defendants
and
no
their officers
IT IS
agents
SO ORDERED
DATED
this
th
day of
or local
PERMANENTLY
recognition
state
can deny recognition of a samegender couples
marriage validly performed in another jurisdiction The Court
ENJOINS
that
May
2014
L
Michael
United
JMcShane
States District
Judge
those
that
Sent
MADKOUR
Sheila H
5 20 2014 10 00 19 AM
Subject
Fwd
Attachments
Multnomah
From
Jenny
To
Potter
CC
Public
Records
Request
County Public
Records
Request
5 19 14 pdf
Sheila
Please see the attached
records request below
public
Did the state receive a similar request
Jenny
let
chat
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
500
Suite
Oregon 97214
Portland
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
Forwarded
Tue
susans
20 2014
at
jenny
m madkour
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
client
privilege
transmission
this
If
you have
received
this
Thank you
com
hbclawyers
9 41
AM
multco us
katharine von terstegge
Cc Roger
Please
may
Public Records Request
Subject
To
May
or the attachments
message
From Susan Smith

Date
and
Harris
jenny
co multnomah
roger
hbclawyers
multco us
co multnomah
or us
com
copy of correspondence
see attached
m madkour
or us
records request to Multnomah
County
Best wishes
Susan L Smith
Legal
Assistant
Direct
503 596 2924
5000
SW
Meadows
This e mail
Unless
is
Tel
Road
privileged and
expressly
avoiding
federal
stated
tax
Manager
Office
503 968 1475
Suite
confidential
otherwise
penalties
400
any
Lake
Do
federal
Fax 503 968 2003
x 2924
Oswego
not forward
tax advice
copy
or
contained
OR
print
susans
97035
without
authorization
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
com
If
misdirected
including
please
attachments
is
delete
and
notify
not intended
to
the sender by email
be used
and cannot
be used
for
the
purpose
of
HARRIS
BERNE
CHRISTENSEN
A
T T
C O
LARGE
LLP
O R
SMALL
EXPERTISE
Roger
email
Harris
rogerhbclawyerscom
May 19 2014
AND REGULAR MAIL
VIA FAX EMAIL
Multnomah County Records

1620 SE 190th Avenue
Portland
OR 97233
Fax 5039883754
Email recordsmultcous
Re
Pursuant
jennifermundymultcous
Records Request
Public
Custodian
Dear Records
ORS
to
192410
et
we
seq
communications andor correspondence
request
including
of
copies
electronic
documents
all
digital
relating
to
copy etc between
hard
613cv01834MC
Multnomah
County
Assessors
and the parties andor
and Case
Deanna
We
No
Geiger
Benjamin
Education
Fund
Janine
West
ACLU
Kitzhaber
Attorney
and
their
attorney
them
such
if
their
including
between
andor among
we
correspondence
Assessors
5000
SW Meadows
Suite
400
Lake
Oswego OR 97035
Road
request
including
Office
including
but not
Duehmig
Christine
Oregon
Inc
Rosenblum
agents
and
representatives
Oregon USDC
Case
No
limited to the following
William
State
Paul
Grieser
Basic
Tanner
Oregon
Rights
Governor
Registrar
If
of
electronic
its
5039681475
5039682003
wwwHBClaw erscom
communications
representatives
you
agreement we ask
copies
legal
all
to a joint
pursuant
representatives
defendants
communications
or privileged
defendants
are seeking
including
Additionally
of
Ellen
lawyers agents and
defense and confidentiality
Robert
Chickadonz
work product
their lawyers agents and

the
consolidated
John
Jennifer
attorneys
We
exists
in
counsel
legal
including
Nelson
Lisa
General
its
named
Foundation
communications among or between
agreement
including
613cv02256MC
Woodward
seeking
Office
legal counsel
their
Rummell
are not
and
for a
counsel
hard
and confidentiality
between
plaintiffs
and defendants
all
or any
nonprotected
any documents
or any
of
of
them
communications
pursuant
to a
joint
copy of the executed document
documents
digital
withhold
nor any confidential
defense
relating
copy
agents
and
etc
to
communications
between
Multnomah
representatives
and
USDC
andor
County
Judge
N C
May 19 2014
Page
McShane
Michael
and Case
Further
No
andor
providers
we
agree
including
Office
notify
to
me
me
at
its
the
the
requests
rogerhbclawyerscom
or mailed
request
Office of the
being
to
me
is
at
If
We
agents
613cv01834MC
costs
but
prefer these
thats not
if
Katharine
von Ter Stegge
Multnomah County
and
representatives
of
samesex
Road
made
those
costs
vendors
or
marriage licenses
exceed
will
records be delivered
feasible
5000 Meadows
simultaneously being
Madkour
between
andor
June 26 2013 to present
they
Suite
to the
Governor
RKHsIs
Jenny
No
communications
to
etc
and
andor implementation
reproduction
incurring that cost
is
counsel
legal
copy
Very truly yours
cc
USDC Case
relating
hard
digital
printing design
pay reasonable
before
5039682003
similar
Oregon
documents
all
electronic
including
regarding
to
re consolidated
of
copies
request
The time frame for the above
We
staff
613cv02256MC
correspondence
Assessors
his
can
400
Oregon
in
be faxed to
Lake
$150
electronic
my
Oswego
Department
please
format
attention
OR 97035
of Justice
at
A
and
Subject
H
MADKOUR Joyce Anna
5 20 2014 10 03 05 AM
RE Public Records Request
Attachments
image001
From
Jenny
CC
Sent
We
Sheila
Potter
To
did indeed
What
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
s your schedule
mailto
May 20
Sheila
jenny
2014
like
m madkour
multco us
10 00 AM
VON TER
Fwd
png
Public
STEGGE
Records
Request
Sheila
Please
Did
see the
the
state
Jenny M
attached
receive
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
988
503
NOTICE
records
request
let
below
s chat
Madkour
County
SE
public
a similar request
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
3377
This
the
attorney
the
sender
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
may contain
you have
by reply email
and
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
you
message
Forwarded
From
Susan
Date
Tue
Subject
To
May
susans
20
Public
jenny
jenny
Smith
2014
Records
m madkour
m madkour
hbclawyers
at
com mailto
susans
hbclawyers
com
9 41 AM
Request
multco us mailto
multco us mailto
jenny
jenny
m madkour
m madkour
multco us
multco us
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us mailto
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us
katharine
von
terstegge
co
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us
Cc
Roger
Please
Best
Harris
see attached
Legal
Assistant
copy
of
com mailto
correspondence
roger
records
hbclawyers
request
to
com
Multnomah
County
Smith
Logo
Direct
596
968
5000
Meadows
SW
hbclawyers
2924
2003
tel
tel
Road
com http
e mail is
authorization
Unless
Office
503
503
www
privileged
If
596
968
Suite
attachments
2924
2003
400
and
Lake
not
503
968
1475
hbclawyers
Oswego
OR
x 2924
tel
com mailto
97035
503
968
1475
20x 202924
milt hbclawyers
com
com
confidential
Do
please delete
otherwise
is
Tel
susans
hbclawyers
misdirected
expressly stated
including
Manager
Color
503
Fax 503
This
hbclawyers
wishes
Susan
HBC
roger
any federal
intended
to
not
and
forward
notify
tax advice
be used
and
copy
the
or print without
sender
contained
cannot
by email
be used
for the
purpose
of
avoiding
federal
tax penalties
11
Subject
H
MADKOUR Joyce Anna
5 20 2014 10 03 05 AM
RE Public Records Request
Attachments
image001
From
Jenny
CC
Sent
We
Sheila
Potter
To
did indeed
What
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
s your schedule
mailto
May 20
Sheila
jenny
2014
like
m madkour
multco us
10 00 AM
VON TER
Fwd
png
Public
STEGGE
Records
Request
Sheila
Please
Did
see the
the
state
Jenny M
attached
receive
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
988
503
NOTICE
records
request
let
below
s chat
Madkour
County
SE
public
a similar request
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
3377
This
the
attorney
the
sender
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
may contain
you have
by reply email
and
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
you
message
Forwarded
From
Susan
Date
Tue
Subject
To
May
susans
20
Public
jenny
jenny
Smith
2014
Records
m madkour
m madkour
hbclawyers
at
com mailto
susans
hbclawyers
com
9 41 AM
Request
multco us mailto
multco us mailto
jenny
jenny
m madkour
m madkour
multco us
multco us
katharine
von
terstegge
co
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us
katharine
von
terstegge
co
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us
Cc
Roger
Please
Best
Harris
see attached
Legal
Assistant
copy
of
com mailto
correspondence
roger
records
hbclawyers
request
to
com
Multnomah
County
Smith
Logo
Direct
596
968
5000
Meadows
SW
hbclawyers
2924
2003
tel
tel
Road
com http
e mail is
authorization
Unless
Office
503
503
www
privileged
If
596
968
Suite
attachments
2924
2003
400
and
Lake
not
503
968
1475
hbclawyers
Oswego
OR
x 2924
tel
com mailto
97035
503
968
1475
20x 202924
milt hbclawyers
com
com
confidential
Do
please delete
otherwise
is
Tel
susans
hbclawyers
misdirected
expressly stated
including
Manager
Color
503
Fax 503
This
hbclawyers
wishes
Susan
HBC
roger
any federal
intended
to
not
and
forward
notify
tax advice
be used
and
copy
the
or print without
sender
contained
cannot
by email
be used
for the
purpose
of
avoiding
federal
tax penalties
11
VON TER STEGGE

H
5 20 2014 10 03 10 AM
out of office notification RE Public
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
Subject
am
Sheila
currently out of the office
immediate assistance
I will
please contact
return to the office
Amy
Goodale
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
at
Records
Tuesday
Request
May
503 988 3138
27
If
yo u need
MADKOUR
Sheila H
From
Jenny
To
Potter
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 20 2014 10 05 39
AM
Subject
Re
Request
available
me know
Let
Jenny
between
Public
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Records
noon and 1pm 2 230 and 4 430
any of those times work for you
if
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
fax
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
May
Tue
We
20 2014
did indeed
From
Jenny
Sent
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
and
at
What
MADKOUR
or the attachments
may
10 03
AM
Potter
by
reply email
Sheila
information
and
sheila
protected
then destroy
potter
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
doj state or us
If
you have
received
this
received
this
Thank you
wrote
s your schedule like
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco
us
May 20 2014 10 00 AM
Tuesday
To
message
H
VON TER STEGGE
Sheila
Fwd
Public
Records Request
Sheila
Please
see the attached
public
records request
Jenny
let
below
s chat
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
and
or the attachments
may
Forwarded
From Susan Smith
message
susans
hbclawyers
com
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
Thank you
Date
Tue
To
May
20 2014
at
jenny
m madkour
AM
multco us
Cc Roger
Please
9 41
Subject
Harris
jenny
co multnomah
roger
multco us
co multnomah
or us
com
hbclawyers
see attached
m madkour
or us
County
Best wishes
Susan L Smith
Legal
Assistant
Direct
503 596 2924
5000
SW
Meadows
This e mail
Unless
is
Tel
Road
privileged and
expressly
avoiding
federal
stated
tax
Manager
Office
503 968 1475
Suite
400
confidential
otherwise
any
Lake
Do
federal
may
not forward
tax advice
copy
or
contained
OR
print
97035
without
authorization
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
com
If
misdirected
including
please
attachments
is
delete
and
notify
not intended
to
the sender by email
be used
and cannot
be used
for
the
purpose
of
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
Oswego
susans
penalties
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
Fax 503 968 2003
x 2924
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Jenny
H
MADKOUR
Sheila
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 20 2014 10 11 25
Subject
RE
Attachments
image001
Let
AM
Records
Public
Request
png
s go with 2 2 30
Anna
s booked
From
Jenny MADKOUR
mailto
jenny
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Joyce
Subject
I
May 20
Sheila
Anna
Re
me know
Jenny M
m madkour
but
will
give
you a call
then
multco us
10 06 AM
VON TER
Records
noon
any of
STEGGE
Request
and
those
1pm
times
2 230
work
and
4 430
for you
Madkour
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
up today
between
if
County
SE
2014
Katharine
Public
m available
Let
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
988
503
NOTICE
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
3377
This
the
attorney
the
sender
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
may contain
you have
by reply email
and
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
this transmission
you
On
Tue
May
sheila
We
20
2014
potter
did indeed
What
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
at
Sheila
Potter
or us mailto
s your schedule
mailto
May 20
2014
jenny
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state
Public
m madkour
multco us mailto
10 00 AM
STEGGE
Records
Request
Sheila
Please
Did
see the
the
state
Jenny M
attached
receive
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
records
a similar request
request
let
below
s chat
Madkour
County
SE
public
503
988
988
3138
3377
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
tel
tel
503
503
2F988
2F988
3138
3377
or us
wrote
like
VON TER
Fwd
10 03 AM
doj state
jenny
m morf multco us
jenny
m madkour
by
please notify
multco us
Thank
NOTICE
This
the
attorney
the
sender
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
may contain
you have
by reply email
and
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
you
message
Forwarded
From
Susan
Date
Tue
Subject
To
May
susans
20
Public
jenny
jenny
Smith
2014
Records
m madkour
m madkour
hbclawyers
at
com mailto
susans
hbclawyers
com
9 41 AM
Request
multco us mailto
multco us mailto
jenny
jenny
m madkour
m madkour
multco us
multco us
katharine
von
terstegge
co
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us
katharine
von
terstegge
co
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us
Cc
Roger
Please
Best
Harris
see attached
Legal
Assistant
of
correspondence
roger
records
hbclawyers
request
to
com
Multnomah
County
596
2924
968
5000
Meadows
SW
hbclawyers
2003
tel
tel
e mail is
Road
including
If
www
attachments
Lake
hbclawyers
and
503
not
968
1475
hbclawyers
Oswego
OR
x 2924
tel
com mailto
97035
503
968
1475
20x 202924
milt hbclawyers
com
com
confidential
Do
please delete
otherwise
is
not
and
any federal
intended
to
forward
notify
tax advice
be used
and
copy
the
or print without
sender
by email
contained
cannot
be used
for the
purpose
of
NOTICE
e mail may contain
reply e mail
400
Tel
susans
tax penalties
CONFIDENTIALITY
or otherwise
2924
2003
misdirected
attachments
under
596
968
privileged
federal
disclosure
503
Suite
expressly stated
avoiding
Manager
503
com http
authorization
Unless
Office
Color
503
Fax 503
This
copy
com mailto
Smith
Logo
Direct
This
hbclawyers
wishes
Susan
HBC
roger
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
11
From
Potter
To
Jenny
H
MADKOUR
Sheila
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 20 2014 10 11 25
Subject
RE
Attachments
image001
Let
AM
Records
Public
Request
png
s go with 2 2 30
Anna
s booked
From
Jenny MADKOUR
mailto
jenny
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Joyce
Subject
I
May 20
Sheila
Anna
Re
me know
Jenny M
m madkour
but
will
give
you a call
then
multco us
10 06 AM
VON TER
Records
noon
any of
STEGGE
Request
and
those
1pm
times
2 230
work
and
4 430
for you
Madkour
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
up today
between
if
County
SE
2014
Katharine
Public
m available
Let
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
988
503
NOTICE
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
3377
This
the
attorney
the
sender
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
may contain
you have
by reply email
and
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
this transmission
you
On
Tue
May
sheila
We
20
2014
potter
did indeed
What
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
at
Sheila
Potter
or us mailto
s your schedule
mailto
May 20
2014
jenny
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state
Public
m madkour
multco us mailto
10 00 AM
STEGGE
Records
Request
Sheila
Please
Did
see the
the
state
Jenny M
attached
receive
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
records
a similar request
request
let
below
s chat
Madkour
County
SE
public
503
988
988
3138
3377
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
tel
tel
503
503
2F988
2F988
3138
3377
or us
wrote
like
VON TER
Fwd
10 03 AM
doj state
jenny
m morf multco us
jenny
m madkour
by
please notify
multco us
Thank
NOTICE
This
the
attorney
the
sender
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
may contain
you have
by reply email
and
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
you
message
Forwarded
From
Susan
Date
Tue
Subject
To
May
susans
20
Public
jenny
jenny
Smith
2014
Records
m madkour
m madkour
hbclawyers
at
com mailto
susans
hbclawyers
com
9 41 AM
Request
multco us mailto
multco us mailto
jenny
jenny
m madkour
m madkour
multco us
multco us
katharine
von
terstegge
co
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us
katharine
von
terstegge
co
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us
Cc
Roger
Please
Best
Harris
see attached
Legal
Assistant
of
correspondence
roger
records
hbclawyers
request
to
com
Multnomah
County
596
2924
968
5000
Meadows
SW
hbclawyers
2003
tel
tel
e mail is
Road
including
If
www
attachments
Lake
hbclawyers
and
503
not
968
1475
hbclawyers
Oswego
OR
x 2924
tel
com mailto
97035
503
968
1475
20x 202924
milt hbclawyers
com
com
confidential
Do
please delete
otherwise
is
not
and
any federal
intended
to
forward
notify
tax advice
be used
and
copy
the
or print without
sender
by email
contained
cannot
be used
for the
purpose
of
NOTICE
e mail may contain
reply e mail
400
Tel
susans
tax penalties
CONFIDENTIALITY
or otherwise
2924
2003
misdirected
attachments
under
596
968
privileged
federal
disclosure
503
Suite
expressly stated
avoiding
Manager
503
com http
authorization
Unless
Office
Color
503
Fax 503
This
copy
com mailto
Smith
Logo
Direct
This
hbclawyers
wishes
Susan
HBC
roger
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
11
MADKOUR
Sheila H
From
Jenny
To
Potter
CC
Joyce Anna
Sent
5 20 2014 10 12 15
AM
Subject
Re
Request
Public
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Records
perfect
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
fax
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
May
Tue
message
20 2014
Jenny
Sent
Potter
Cc
Joyce Anna
by
Potter Sheila
reply email
m madkour
jenny
multco
information
and
sheila
booked up today but
protected
then destroy
potter
will give
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
doj state or us
you a
call
protected
by
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
received
this
received
this
Thank you
wrote
then
us
VON TER STEGGE
Records Request
between noon and
me know
Jenny
AM
10 11
mailto
Katharine
Public
m available
Let
Sheila
Re
may
May 20 2014 10 06 AM
To
at
MADKOUR
Tuesday
Subject
or the attachments
Anna
Let s go with 2 2 30
From
and
if
any
of those
1pm
2 230 and 4 430
times work for you
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
fax
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
We
Tue
May
message
20 2014
did indeed
and
or the attachments
may
What
at
10 03
AM
Potter
by
Sheila
reply email
information
and
sheila
then destroy
potter
all
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
doj state or us
wrote
If
you have
Thank you
From
MADKOUR
Jenny
Sent
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco
us
May 20 2014 10 00 AM
Tuesday
H
VON TER STEGGE
Sheila
Subject
Fwd
Public
Records Request
Sheila
Please
see the attached
records request
public
Jenny
below
s chat
let
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
Forwarded
Tue
Subject
To
May
may
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
susans
20 2014
at
m madkour
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
received
this
Thank you
AM
Harris
roger
see attached
jenny
co multnomah
hbclawyers
m madkour
multco us
or us
com
Best wishes
Susan L Smith
Legal
Assistant
Direct
503 596 2924
SW
the attorney
com
hbclawyers
9 41
multco us
Cc Roger
5000
by
copies of
jenny
Please
or the attachments
message
From Susan Smith

Date
and
Meadows
Office
Tel
Road
Manager
503 968 1475
Suite
400
x 2924
Lake
Fax 503 968 2003
Oswego
OR
97035
susans
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
com
County
co multnomah
or us
This e mail
Unless
is
privileged and
expressly
avoiding
federal
stated
tax
confidential
otherwise
any
Do
federal
may
or
contained
print
without
authorization
If
misdirected
including
please
attachments
is
delete
and
notify
not intended
to
the sender by email
be used
and cannot
be used
for
the
purpose
of
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
tax advice
copy
penalties
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
not forward
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Jenny
H
MADKOUR
Sheila
Sent
5 20 2014 11 23 45
Subject
RE
Attachments
image001
Hey
so I
at 2 30
at
feeling a little
noon
if
you still
Jenny MADKOUR
mailto
Tuesday
May 20
2014
To
Potter
Cc
Joyce
Subject
Request
png
me from their carrier during
Kitty is
available
From
Sent
AM
Records
have a sick little

foster kitten
and the Humane Society vet can
I could call you from the car
but the odds are that there would
angrily at
option
Public
Sheila
Anna
Re
the
crummy
are
call
but
or at
and
4 00
jenny m madkour
10 12 AM
you know
her lungs
Do
that
are quite
either of
is
take a look at her

be kittens yelling
probably
decisively
those
still
not
our best
unaffected
am
work
multco us
Katharine
Public
VON TER
Records
STEGGE
Request
perfect
Jenny M
Madkour
County
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
SE
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
988
503
NOTICE
the
the
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
3377
This
message
and
or the
attachments
may contain
confidential
information
protected
you
On
Tue
May
sheila
Let
20
2014
potter
at
10 11 AM
doj state
Potter
or us mailto
s go with 2 2 30
Anna
s booked
From
Jenny MADKOUR
mailto
jenny
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Joyce
Subject
I
May 20
Sheila
Anna
Re
me know
Jenny M
Sheila
sheila
up today
m madkour
potter
but
doj state
or us
will
you a call
give
multco us mailto
10 06 AM
H
VON TER
Records
between
if
noon
any of
those
STEGGE
Request
and
1pm
times
2 230
work
and
4 430
for you
Madkour
County
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
SE
2014
Katharine
Public
m available
Let
by
attorney client privilege

If you have received this transmission in error
please notify
sender immediately by reply email and then destroy all copies of this transmission
Thank
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
988
3138
Suite
500
97214
tel
multco us mailto
503
2F988
3138
jenny
m morf multco us
jenny
wrote
then
m madkour
multco us
fax
503
NOTICE
988
3377
This
the
attorney
the
sender
tel
message
client
503
and
2F988
or the
privilege
immediately
3377
attachments
If
may contain
you have
by reply email
and
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
you
On
Tue
May
sheila
We
20
2014
potter
did indeed
What
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
at
Sheila
Potter
or us mailto
s your schedule
mailto
May 20
jenny
2014
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
like
m madkour
multco us mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
10 00 AM
VON TER
Fwd
10 03 AM
doj state
Public
STEGGE
Records
Request
Sheila
Please
Did
see the
the
state
Jenny M
attached
receive
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
records
request
let
below
s chat
Madkour
County
SE
public
a similar request
988
503
NOTICE
attorney
the
sender
multco us mailto
tel
3377
This
the
500
97214
3138
988
Suite
503
tel
message
client
2F988
503
and
m morf multco us
3138
2F988
3377
or the
privilege
immediately
jenny
attachments
If
may contain
you have
by reply email
and
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
you
message
Forwarded
From
Susan
Date
Tue
Subject
To
May
susans
20
Public
jenny
jenny
Smith
2014
Records
m madkour
m madkour
hbclawyers
at
com mailto
susans
hbclawyers
com
9 41 AM
Request
multco us mailto
multco us mailto
jenny
jenny
m madkour
m madkour
multco us
multco us
katharine
von
terstegge
co
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us
katharine
von
terstegge
co
katharine
von
terstegge
co
multnomah or us
Cc
Roger
Please
Best
Harris
see attached
Legal
Assistant
copy
of
com mailto
correspondence
roger
records
hbclawyers
request
to
com
Multnomah
County
Smith
Logo
Direct
596
968
5000
Meadows
SW
hbclawyers
2924
2003
tel
tel
Road
com http
e mail is
authorization
Unless
Office
including
503
503
www
privileged
If
2924
2003
400
and
Lake
not
tax penalties
503
968
1475
hbclawyers
Oswego
OR
x 2924
tel
com mailto
97035
503
968
1475
20x 202924
milt hbclawyers
com
com
confidential
Do
please delete
otherwise
is
Tel
susans
hbclawyers
misdirected
attachments
federal
596
968
Suite
expressly stated
avoiding
Manager
Color
503
Fax 503
This
hbclawyers
wishes
Susan
HBC
roger
any federal
intended
to
not
and
forward
notify
tax advice
be used
and
copy
the
or print without
sender
contained
cannot
by email
be used
for the
purpose
of
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
11
Jenny
To
Potter
Sent
5 20 2014 11 45 10
AM
Subject
Re
Request
now
here
Jenny
Public
Records
1pm
till
MADKOUR
Sheila H
From
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
fax
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
May
Tue
Hey
so
message
20 2014
have a
sick
you from the
call
during the
and
or the attachments
may
by
at
li
car
and
call
11 23
le
AM
Potter Sheila
foster ki en
information
reply email
and
sheila
potter
and the Humane Society
by
protected
then destroy
all
the attorney
copies of
this
client
doj state or us
vet can take a look
lungs are quite decisively
that is probably not our best option
unaected
am
available
at
noon
if
you
Ki y
is
are
still
If
you have
received
this
Thank you
wrote
but the odds are that there would be ki ens yelling angrily at
you know
privilege
transmission
at her at 2 30
me
feeling a
or
at
4 00
li
from
le
Do
could
their carrier
crummy
but her
either of those
still
work
From
Jenny
Sent
MADKOUR
To
Potter
Cc
Joyce
Subject
Sheila
Anna
Re
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco
us
May 20 2014 10 12 AM
Tuesday
H
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
perfect
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
and
or the attachments
may
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
On
May
Tue
20 2014
Anna
Let s go with 2 2 30
From
Jenny
Sent
MADKOUR
To
Potter
Cc
Joyce Anna
m madkour
jenny
multco
will give
doj state or us
you a
call
protected
by
wrote
then
us
Records Request
1pm
between noon and
me know
Jenny
booked up today but
potter
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Public
m available
Let
mailto
sheila
Sheila
Re
Potter Sheila
May 20 2014 10 06 AM
Tuesday
Subject
AM
10 11
at
if
any
of those
2 230 and 4 430
times work for you
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
fax
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
Tue
We
May
20 2014
did indeed
From
Sent
Jenny
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
and
at
What
MADKOUR
Tuesday
To
message
or the attachments
may
10 03
AM
Potter
by
reply email
Sheila
sheila
mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco
us
May 20 2014 10 00 AM
H
VON TER STEGGE
Sheila
Fwd
Public
Records Request
Sheila
Please
see the attached
public
records request
Jenny
Madkour
let
below
s chat
information
and
then destroy
potter
all
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
doj state or us
wrote
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
500
Suite
Oregon 97214
Portland
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
Forwarded
Tue
jenny
susans
20 2014
at
m madkour
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
client
privilege
transmission
this
If
you have
received
this
Thank you
com
hbclawyers
9 41
AM
multco us
Cc Roger
Please
may
Subject
To
May
or the attachments
message
From Susan Smith

Date
and
Harris
jenny
co multnomah
roger
multco us
co multnomah
or us
or us
com
hbclawyers
see attached
m madkour
County
Best wishes
Susan L Smith
Legal
Assistant
Direct
503 596 2924
5000
SW
Meadows
This e mail
Unless
is
Tel
Road
privileged and
expressly
avoiding
federal
stated
tax
Manager
Office
503 968 1475
Suite
400
confidential
otherwise
any
Lake
Do
federal
may
not forward
tax advice
copy
or
contained
OR
print
97035
without
authorization
hbclawyers
com
hbclawyers
com
If
misdirected
including
please
attachments
is
delete
and
notify
not intended
to
the sender by email
be used
and cannot
be used
for
the
purpose
of
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
Oswego
susans
penalties
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
Fax 503 968 2003
x 2924
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lago Perr on
To
Lea Ann Easton

Isaak
Tom
behalf
of
Potter
Johnson
Lake Perriguey
Sheila
Kevin Diaz

kdiaz
aclu or org
williams
Katharine
msn com
Joyce Anna
Misha
VON TER STEGGE
MADKOUR
Sent
5 21 2014 12 33 27
Subject
9th Circuit and
The
NOM
PM
s secret donors
9th Circuit yesterday rejected John Eastman s secrecy
www
http
Lake James
sfgate
com
politics article
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
Prop 8 donor
arguments from Prop 8
IDs remain public appeals
court
5493400
php
Jenny
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
5 21 2014 2 24 59
Subject
Pennsylvania
Notice
This communication
intended
Sheila
recipient
for
Joyce Anna
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
Washington
with
including
avoiding
any attachments
individual
this
notified
Notice 2
PM
including
specific
and are hereby
attachments
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
and
is strictly
IRS regulations
any attachments
party
we
Governor
protected
by law
If
you are not the

distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
any transaction
Post says Pennsylvania
is
not intended
to another
contain
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
promoting marketing
Lea Ann
SCOTUS
or
herein
released statement today that Pennsylvania

will not appeal yesterday s
decision
There s also interesting post on
in this
for the
Blog today about Ninth
Circuit
s stay of Nevada
decision
From
Joyce Anna
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
5 21 2014 2 25 05
Subject
Automatic
will
contact
be out
of
Michael
the
office
Casper at
reply
until
503
PM
Pennsylvania
378
Tuesday
4402
May 27th
If
you need
immediate
assistance
please
Sent
MADKOUR
Sheila H
5 22 2014 10 41 13 AM
Subject
public
From
Jenny
To
Potter
CC
records request
Hi there
Let
me know
The County
to
if
there
are any updates to share
charges
will
likely
exceed
150
If
but
so
please give
am
me a
waiting for
call
an estimate
of
charges
from
my
IT folks before responding
the request with our estimate
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
and
or the attachments
may
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
H
MADKOUR
5 22 2014 10 42 33 AM
RE public records request
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Jenny
CC
Sent
Subject
Leaving
you a voicemail
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
of
Phone
971
Phone
Tu
now
Potter
Trial Counsel
Th
503
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Thursday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
Justice
673
947
mailto
May 22
Sheila
Portland
Salem
jenny
2014
m madkour
multco us
10 41 AM
VON TER
public
5026
4688
STEGGE
records
request
Hi there
Let
me know
The
County
my IT
if
before
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
503
NOTICE
the
will
likely
responding
to
share
exceed
to
the
If
150
request
but
so
I
please give
am waiting
me a call
for an estimate
of
charges
from
protected
by
with our estimate
Madkour
County
SE
are any updates
s charges
folks
Jenny M
there
988
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
This
attorney
the sender
you
Suite
3377
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
you have
by reply email
and
may contain
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
please notify
this transmission
Thank
H
MADKOUR
5 22 2014 10 42 33 AM
RE public records request
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Jenny
CC
Sent
Subject
Leaving
you a voicemail
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
of
Phone
971
Phone
Tu
now
Potter
Trial Counsel
Th
503
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Thursday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
Justice
673
947
mailto
May 22
Sheila
Portland
Salem
jenny
2014
m madkour
multco us
10 41 AM
VON TER
public
5026
4688
STEGGE
records
request
Hi there
Let
me know
The
County
my IT
if
before
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
503
NOTICE
the
will
likely
responding
to
share
exceed
to
the
If
150
request
but
so
I
please give
am waiting
me a call
for an estimate
of
charges
from
protected
by
with our estimate
Madkour
County
SE
are any updates
s charges
folks
Jenny M
there
988
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
This
attorney
the sender
you
Suite
3377
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
you have
by reply email
and
may contain
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
please notify
this transmission
Thank
MADKOUR
Sheila H
From
Jenny
To
Potter
Sent
5 22 2014 12 48 01
Subject
Re
PM
records request
public
Thanks Sheila
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
On Thu May
message
and
22 2014
at
10 42
may
AM
Potter
by
reply email
Sheila
information
and
sheila
protected
then destroy
potter
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
doj state or us
If
you have
received
this
Thank you
wrote
now
you a voicemail
Leaving
or the attachments
H Poer
Sheila
Deputy
Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon Department of Jus ce
Phone
Th F
Phone
Tu
From
Sent
Jenny
971 673 5026
503 947 4688
MADKOUR
May 22
Thursday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
mailto
Portland
Salem
jenny
m madkour
multco
us
2014 10 41 AM
H
VON TER STEGGE
Sheila
public
records request
Hi there
Let
me know
The County
folks
if
there are any updates to share
s charges will
before responding
Jenny
Madkour
likely
exceed
to the request
150
If
but
so
please give
am
me
call
waiting for an estimate of cha rges from
with our estimate
my
IT
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
and
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
received
this
Thank you
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
or the attachments
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
5 27 2014 9 08 02
Subject
NOM SCOTUS
Sheila
Lea Ann Easton
PM
Motion
Hi Sheila
Is state
http
going to
www
file
a response to
law works com
NOM s latest
effort
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Mary Williams
Sent
5 28 2014 9 53 59
Subject
NOM
mary h
williams
msn com
AM
SCOTUS
Hi Mary
We
are working on a response to the
Kennedy penned the dissent

law and
state
if
state
in
new motion
Perry
He
for stay
reasoned that the question of
law allows proponent of
initiative
to defend
it
that
who can
should
challenge an initiative
be
sufficient
is
based on
to confer Article III
standing to appeal
do not know of any prior
and where a voter
tried
situation
where the State has not defended
to intervene in
some way
a law
but excellently defended
but maybe there were times
when
its
position
a v oter or petitioner wanted a
seat at the table anyway
Do
you know
Oregon election law suggests
if
law to defend
state
Lake James
initiative
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
that
a voter
who
voted for an initiative
in
the past has standing under
VON TER STEGGE

H
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Ona DAVIS
Sent
5 29 2014 12 21 34
Subject
Monday deadline
Sheila
PM
Hi Sheila
Can you
find
please
problem
tell
me how
a record of the notice
you know
We
but in the meantime
understand that
we
we
have a Monday deadline
are not getting
wanted to confirm there
are joining in your response
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
electronic
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
is
heard about
notices of anything
We
an actual deadline and
Thanks
it
on
N PR
but
my paralegal
are working on correcting
figur
e out where
it
was
can
the
given
From
Potter
To
H
VON TER STEGGE
Sheila
Katharine
CC
Ona DAVIS
Sent
5 29 2014 12 36 58
Subject
RE
I only know because Anna

counsel of record on the
think
you need
with the
PM
Monday deadline
to
enter
District
Court
and Mary are registered with the Ninth

Ninth Circuit piece
and they got word
an appearance
I
ll
send
in the
you what
Ninth
they
Circuit and Supreme Court as

from the Supreme Court
I
Circuit case
to
be getting
notices
like
got
Sheila
From
Katharine
VON TER
STEGGE
Sent
Thursday
May 29
2014
To
Potter
Cc
Ona DAVIS
Subject
Sheila
Monday
mailto
katevts
multco us
12 22 PM
deadline
Hi Sheila
Can
you please tell
paralegal can
anything
there
I
is
We
von
Ter
that
of
we
the
and
are joining
have
a Monday
notice
on correcting
deadline
we
you know
a record
are working
the
figure out
We
deadline
are not
getting
problem
but
in the
where
was
given
it
in your response
heard
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
meantime
Thanks
Attorney
97214
fax
about
electronic
Stegge
Senior
katevts
me how
find
an actual
understand
Kate
multco us
it
on NPR
notices
wanted
to
but
of
confirm
my
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
5 29 2014
Subject
FW
FYI
There
forwarded
From
Danny
Date
May 28
To
sshapiro
sshapiro
2014
aclu
Subject
org mailto
doj state
doj state
hbclawyers
jeastman
Geiger et al
entry
but
this is
what
was
forwarded
to
me
13A1173
edu
edu
NOM
aclu
or us mailto
mailto
mailto
sshapiro
or us mailto
com mailto
roger
roger
mailto
dbickell
supremecourt
gov
org
michael casper
michael casper
hbclawyers
jeastman
et
aclu
org
hbclawyers
jeastman
Geiger
gov
PDT
sshapiro
com mailto
chapman
chapman
supremecourt
12 15 55 PM
org mailto
hbclawyers
jeastman
a formal docket
dbickell
at
aclu
michael casper
roger
been
NOM
multco us
katevts
message
Bickell
michael casper
roger
13A1173
may also have
Begin
H
VON TER STEGGE
12 38 56 PM
Sheila
or us
or us
com
com
chapman
chapman
doj state
doj state
edu
edu
al
Counsel
Justice
Kennedy
has called
Monday
June
2014
Thank
you
Danny
Bickell
202
479
3024
for a response
by 1pm ET
Please
to
feel
the
free
application
to
contact
for stay
Responses
are due
me with any questions
H
VON TER STEGGE
From
Potter Sheila
To
Katharine
jenny
m morf
Sent
5 30 2014 12 13 05
Subject
Geiger case
Attachments JUSTICE
GEIGER
35427
katevts
multco us
Jenny
MADKOUR
multco us
PM
DRAFT S
Ct response
5346230 v1
RESPONSE TO APPLICATION
Deanna
Kate and Jenny

is a confidential
Attached
TO STAY JUDGMENT
PENDING APPEAL
draft of a response
to the NOM
motion for stay
Still
caption stuff
but the meat of the brief is 99
there
Give me a
call to let
like to join
and if you have questions or thoughts on the arguments
Thanks
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
Phone
Phone
14
docx
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
M
Th
F
971 673 5026
Portland
Tu
W
503 947 4688
Salem
tweaking
me know
if
some technical
the county
would
In the
Supreme Court
of the United States
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
No 14 35427
DEANNA L GEIGER JANINE M NELSON ROBERT DUEHMIG

WILLIAM GRIESAR PAUL RUMMELL BENJAMIN WEST LISA
CHICKADONZ
CHRISTINE
TANNER
FUND
Appellees
Plaintiffs
JOHN KITZHABER in his official capacity as

ELLEN ROSENBLUM in her official capacity
Oregon
JENNIFER
Registrar
Center
WALDRUFF
WOODWARD
for Health Statistics
in his official
Defendants
capacity
Governor of Oreg on
General of
as Attorney
in her official
capacity
as State

as
Multnomah County
RANDY
Assessor
Appellees
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE

Intervenor
on behalf of
Movant
their
INC
Proposed
Oregon Members
Appellant
RESPONSE OF OREGON STATE DEFENDANTS IN OPPOSITION TO

APPLICANT S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
Continued
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
753239
General of Oregon
Attorney
ANNA
JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
MARY H WILLIAMS
911241
Special Assistant Attorney
1162 Court Street
General
NE
Salem Oregon 97301 4096
503 378 4402
Telephone
Counsel
for
Defendants
John Kitzhaber
Ellen
county counsel
Randy
Waldruff
plaintiffs
NOM
counsel
counsel
Appellees
Rosenblum
Jennifer
Woo dward
Counsel of Record
5 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
NOM
s burden to obtain
II
NOM
has failed to demonstrate a
from
relief
this Court is extremely high
reasonable probability
that
this Court will grant certiorari in this case
NOM
that this Court will grant certiorari in this case with

respect
to
NOM
NOM
s motion to intervene
has failed to establish a reasonable
probability
review
that this Court
a discretionary
dispute about the
would
ruling
grant certiorari to
on which
there is
legal standard the district
no
court
applied
NOM
probability
review
that this Court
the district
grant certiorari to
NOM
s denial of
court
to intervene because
would
none of
NOM
s motion
members had
a significant protectable interest in the litigation
NOM
has failed to establish a reasonable probability that
this Court will grant certiorari to consider the

district
III
NOM
court
s opinion
will reverse either the
or the
NOM
district
protectable
its
on
a proposed intervenor
interest in the
NOM
prospect
court
intervene
NOM
the
of
s denial of
and as not
14
litigation
reversing the
it
court
district
determination
that
has a chance of
NOM
s
s motion to
was untimely
14
successfully
NOM
NOM
13
with a significant
discretionary
s motion to
the merits
fair
district
that this Court
NOM
s denial of
challenge to the
successfully
prospect
s judgment
court
10
s motion to intervene as untimely
presenting
fair
success on
NOM
court
district
merits of the
and judgment
intervene
reversing the
district
it
has a chance of
court
s motion to intervene because

s three
members has
s denial of
none of
the necessary
interest in
17
litigation
NOM
on
the merits of upholding
same sex marriage
even
if
fair
Oregon
NOM
prospect of success
s constitutional
had any
or could establish the necessary
intervene
ban on
basis to
Article III
standing for an appeal on the merits
NOM
IV
has failed to establish a likelihood that irreparable
from a
will result
denial of a stay
21
harm
24
27
Conclusion
APPENDIX
Geiger v
Transcript
613CV01834MC
Kitzhaber
et al
613CV02256TC
Motion to Dismiss Geiger v
APP 1
Kitzhaber
et al
APP 56
14 35427
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Cited
Alaniz v
Lewis Foods
Tillie
572 F 2d 657
9th Cir
439
denied
cert
S 837 1978
15
Baker v Nelson
409
Conkright v
556
S 810 1972
12
Frommert
S 1401 2009
Elane Photography
LLC
309 P 3d 53
NM
cert denied
Hollingsworth v
3
Willock
2013
134 S Ct 1787
2014
8 18
Perry
133 S Ct 2652
2013
20
Maryland v King
133 S Ct 1 2012
Munaf
Geren
553
NAACP
413
S 674 2008
New
12
York
S 345 1973
Outdoor Media Group

506 F 3d 895
Inc
4
v
City of Beaumont
9th Cir 2007
9
ii
Rostker v
448
Goldberg
S 1306 1980
Ford
See also United States v
650 F 2d 1142 43
United
States v
9th Cir 1981
10
Windsor
133 S Ct 2675
West
Coast Seafood
643 F 3d 701
2013
Processors Assoc
23
v
National Resources
Defense
Council
9th Cir 2011
Inc
10
Whitewood v Wolf
No
13 1861
2014
WL M D
Constitutional
Penn
May
20 2014
21
and Statutory Provisions
OR
S 106 305
23
OR
S 659A 403
18
Const
Art
11
III
iii
19 20 21

APPLICANT S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
The
National Organization for Marriage
the district
as well as the district
litigation
NOM
litigation
around
there
no
rational basis
NOM
p osition
the state
cases
The
including
Attorney
The
s position
possible justifications
all
s primary complaint throughout this
taken
on which to defend the
Oregon s Attorney General has been
about
s motion to intervene in the underlying
attempted to intervene in the matter
it
disagreement with the
its
is
at
that
seeks a stay of both
s order and judgment on the merits of that
court
Application
even months before
case
NOM
s order denying
court
NOM
Inc
clear
have been offered
General determined
NOM
that
state
state defendants
same sex
from the outset of
state carefully
of the arguments
by the
when
case and stand silently by or
outcome
as
defendants
justifications
failed
NOM
presented
to the district
for the state
in light of
Oregon
two
with plaintiffs
The
bans
in other
seeks to have this Court consider
confronted with the
has contended
marriage ban
this litigation
in support of similar
those justifications
collude
that
considered and analyzed the
would be incons
with Oregon s legal policies in the area of domestic relations
General did not acquiesce
has centered
Attorney
istent
But the Attorney
complaints filed in this
to reach a particular
General
on behalf of the
state
court a thorough analysis of the potential
same sex
marriage ban and
s other valid legal choices
why
to treat
same sex
couples
and
their families with respect
conducted
a thorough analysis of the claims presented
constitutional
ban on same
rights of plaintiffs
NOM
Thus
Appendix
this case
legal officer
reached a
standing necessary
unusual
and
not
as
NOM
NOM
even
if
asserts
because Oregon s chief
that
NOM
asserted by the
when
were to prevail on
discretion in denying
its
its
it
lacks
claim that th e
Governor John Kitzhaber
appeal
Jennifer
been
Woodward
fully
motion
for
resolved by the district
a stay
NOM
NOM
burden
extraordinary
Rostker v
Goldberg
with standing to
and
that the issues in this case
court judgment and they oppose
it
NOM
have
seeks
to obtain relief
cases
448
contend
this
s application does not satisfy the high standard
Relief in in chambers
only in
defendants
General Ellen Rosenblum
Attorney
state defendants
required to grant the relief
The Oregon
And
no party with standing to appeal the judgment has any plans to continue
matter beyond the district court
s state
from enforcing the ban
on the merits as
it
court also
and found Oregon
seeks a stay of a final judgment
any appeal
district
the federal constitutional
violate
state defendants
similar conclusion
for
court abused
district
is
but because
plaintiffs
sex marriage to
and enjoined the
Application
The
and dignity under the law
from
this
Court
is
extremely high
stay applications such as this one should be granted
and denial of such applications
S 1306 1308
1980
Brennan
is
the
in
norm
chambers
The burden
probability
on the moving party to demonstrate
is
that this
Court
Court
will then reverse
harm
will
2012
1401
1402
2009
NOM
chambers
in
Ginsburg
much
those requirements
II
the decision below
and
from the denial of a stay
result
Roberts
will grant certiorari
in
less all
reasonable
fair
3 a
likelihood that irreparable
Conkright v
NOM
chambers
2 a
Maryland v
quoting
prospect
King
that
133 S Ct 1 2
Frommert 556
cannot
sati sfy
Court
will
NOM
s arguments treat the motion for a stay of the order denying
grant certiorari in
this
The two
that this
case
s motion to intervene and the motion for a stay of the district
same
of them
largely the
any of
NOM
judgment as
the
require distinct analysis
court s final
and
NOM
fails
to meet the necessary criteria for a stay of either decision
NOM
that this
NOM
scheduled
district
failed
Court
will
grant certiorari in
moved
to intervene in this case shortly before the district
hearing on the plaintiffs
D
A
case with respect to
to establish that
Appendix
this
NOM
court determined both that
litigation
Ct
The
Dkt
it
motions
NOM
represented
No
district
115 pp
any
summary judgment
s motion
was
significant
45 49
court denied
for
urt s
The
untimely and that
NOM
protectable interest in the
hearing transcript attached
NOM
co
as
s request to stay the denial of
NOM
Appeals
NOM
Id
at
52 53
this
appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
NOM
That court also denied
Court
NOM
NOM
Application
at
NOM
33
failed to
protectable interest in the litigation
NOM
also argues
show
that
reviewed
1973
for
ruling
s denial of
abuse of discretion
Timeliness
is
on which
is
abused
Footnotes omitted
See
there is
no
dispute about
court applied
NAACP
New
all
York
413
the circumstances
sound discretion
US
is
345 366
And
it
to
is
unless that
the court s ruling will not be disturbed on review
The
certiorari to
defendants
unlikely to grant
s motion to intervene as untimely
in the exercise of its
district
court
Because those findings are
would grant
NOM
to be determined from
be determined by the court
discretion
significant
certiorari to review
the legal standard the district
court
court
claims
Court would grant
discretionary
district
motion to
has failed to establish a reasonable probability
that this
The
is
its
that the district
had any
it
This Court
Id
certiorari to address either of those
a stay
argues that the district court failed to accept
NOM
erred by determining that
state
for
s non conclusory allegations with respect to the timing of
intervene
denial
s request
Appendix
Application
Before
NOM
NOM
s motion to intervene and
review the
summarize them
made
critical
district
in
some
extensive
findings in support of
its
to the question whether this Court
court s exercise of
detail
its
discretion
the
The
15 2013
district
court found that the Geiger complaint
No
Ct Dkt
December 19 2013
Id
on January 22 2014
and
responses
115 P 45
at
46
set
for
23 2014
Id
to be argued April
filed the state
defendants
On
defendants
was no
47
The
state defendants
filed
motions on March 18 2014
judgment
amicus
motions
The
briefs
and the
By
23
Id
On
intervene
48
On
April
at
hearing and the court denied
man
constitutional
April
1 2014
it
22
21
NOM
lawsuits
summary judgment and
the Oregon Attorney
that the state
would support the ban
to the
at
NOM
summary judgment
summary
woman
could no longer
analysis put forth in recent
three citizen groups had filed
for the previously
11 04 p
filed
as untimely
Id
believed that Oregon s
and one
m NOM
scheduled
filed its
motion to
a motion to delay the April 23rd
Id
All of those facts are supported by the court
the records and
two
on
parties filed their materials
rational basis that
was concluded
briefing
filed
sex marriage ban and would instead
their response
April
hearing on April
Id
was
taking the position that the motions for
under the federal
Id
for
answer and announced
marriage laws restricting marriage to one
appellate decisions
on October
court consolidated the
should be granted because the defendants
pass scrutiny
filed
complaint
February 20 2014
would not support the same
take the position that there
at
district
a schedule
according to the court s order
General
The
The Rummell
was
does not dispute any of them
s docket
and the pleadings
In this Court
NOM
in
simply
without discussion that the Ninth Circuit
asserts
s denial of the motion to intervene because that court
court
NOM
for
to overturn the district
likely
is
a stay
reasons
court
NOM
s factual allegations as true
it
in the
offered for filing
s rejection of
NOM
to intervene less than
because
it
NOM
Ninth Circuit
two
was unaware
its
provided a bit
at
more
motion to intervene when
NOM
s justifications
full
Application
days
NOM
CTA Dkt No 14 p 16
NOM
s assertions that the district
Motion
for
claimed
it
motion
its
that filing
the
hearing
NOM
motion
its
was
timely
would take
Emergency Stay
court disregarded
the court s analysis demonstrates that
In
did and the district
of the position the state defendants
case
33
detail about
it
prior to the scheduled
to credit
failed
in the
Contrar y to
s factual allegations
them but found them
considered
lacking in credibility in light of the entire record before the court
The
district
exclusion of
in
an amici
Dkt
No
court found that the position of the state defendants
same sex
brief to the
115 P 46
announced
publicly
couples
from marriage
Ninth Circuit
The
in
is
different
unconstitutional
case in October
court also found that Attorney
on February 20th
2014
Id
at
47
is
set forth
2013
that the state
shamefully abandoning
announced
that
quote
her constitutional
Ct
would not be
of recent
That same day the proposed intervenor
National Organization for Marriage
Rosenblum
was
General Rosenblum
defending the Oregon marriage laws based on their interpretation
appellate decisions
that the
duty
Attorney
closed
the
General
quote
Id
The
proposed intervenor was
general
a s early as January 25 2014
court also noted that
district
for the
calling
counsel
for
Oregon governor and the attorney
to uphold their oath of office and defend
the Constitution
of Oregon
Id
Those findings make
Appeals
will
very unlikely that the Ninth Circuit Court of
it
overturn the district court
motion to intervene was untimely
s discretionary ruling that
Similarly
it
NOM
would appear even more
unlikely that this Court would grant certiorari to review a discretionary ruling
where the
legal standard
is
NOM
not in dispute
that this
district
Court would grant
court s denial of
because
none
of
NOM
certiorari to review the
NOM
members had a
significant
The
significant
court
district
s determination that
for affirming the court
intervene as untimely
s order
NOM
As
has
NOM
NOM
of
its
likely
sought
members
unidentified
in
any
provides an independent
with the denial of
similar ly failed
establishing that the Ninth Circuit would reverse
Court would
failed to establish
NOM
to meet
on
that
its
ground
s motion to
heavy burden of
ground or
that this
grant certiorari to review that issue
to intervene based on claims
Oregon
county clerk
it
an unidentified worker
and an unidentified voter
asserted on behalf of three
in the
wedding industry
Ct Dkt
No
115 p
an
49
The
general
interest
intervention
planner s
court correctly
district
and not a
Id
general
not be affected
make would
significant
49 50
at
concluded
The
moral or
court also concluded
religious objection
by the issues
in the litigation
not alter the possibility that
50 51
seek out the services
Even
to providing
to
those couples to marry
petitioner
denied
same
record
same
wedding
sex marriage
ruling the court
sex couples
who
their marriages in
whatever
would
would
could marry in
Oregon and
they
may
be
Id
at
in
some completely
separate case
provisions and not with the right of
unlikely that this Court would grant certiorari to
The Court
recently denied
similar petition
for
a case without any vehicle issues about the standing of the
134 S Ct 1787
LLC
Willock
309 P 3d 53
NM
2013
cert
2014
NOM
But the
capacity
government
is
it
legal claims
In this Court
official
couples
discrimination
Elane Photography
county clerk
to
that the
beca use any
of this planner
same sex
dealing with a state s anti
certiorari in
of a
is
the wedding planner had standing to assert his or her objections
if
services
review those
s interest
protectable interest that would allow for
other jurisdictions would seek to celebrate
potentially
that the voter
focuses
district
largely
on the member
court found that the
clerk
whom
is
it
asserts is
not appearing in an
as a representative of any particular county or local
Ct
Dkt
in that the clerk
No 115 P 50
remains anonymous
That finding
his or her
is
supported by the
county a mystery and
the circumstances
a generalized hypothetical grievance
only
or religious objection to
correctly
found
litigation
Id
this
Court
Contrary to
that the
Application
presented
this
its
at
is
Ct
NOM
Dkt
The
moot
relief
court
NOM
state
officials
establish
certiorari to address
to the denial of
that
bea
certiorari
rs
there exists
9th Cir
no
do so
is
not
probability
an additional hurdle
have
in
on the denial of the motion to
filed
May 19 2014
a motion to dismiss
motion to intervene because
State Defendant
it
has
it
NOM
defendants
its
refuse to
a reasonable
court entered judgment in this matter on
state
official
the merits of that legal question
Court s grant of
The
ar gues to
and therefore
capacity
whether a government
when
court
legal interest in the
significant
and therefore does not
can be granted
F 3d 895 900
might have a moral
the district
some official
Whatever
No 120
moot because
in
33
Under Ninth Circuit case law
appeal
she
assertions in the district
worth pointing out
See Appendix
s marriage laws
district
s challenge
he o
that
state
efforts to obtain this
intervene
Court would grant
it
lacked
legal question about
in this case
Finally
its
Because the clerk presented
his or her duties
county clerk appears
standing to defend
NOM
performing
that individual
that
an unsettled
presents
that
unknown
of the clerk s position
it
is
now
s Motion to Dismiss
the entry of the judgment renders
present
NOM
controversy as to which effective
Outdoor Media Group
Inc
2007
omitted
internal citation
City of
Beaumont
506
Where a proposed
10
intervenor appeals
the denial of
court subsequently decides
that
court issues final judgment
if
Processors Assoc
9th Cir 2011
granted
1142
motion to intervene
Resources
That
is
to the proposed intervenor
43
9th Cir
1981
No
moot
certiorari
clear
it
Thus
is
it
likely that the
in order for
NOM
Ford 650 F 2d
appeal from the denial of a
litigation
was
voluntarily
Ninth Circui
court s
NOM
will dismiss
its
appeal as
moot
presents a legal issue worthy of this
in support of that required
for
grant certiorari to consider
s opinion
NOM
Oregon s
following
ourt s
showing
this
the merits of the district
and judgment
to reach this Court on the merits of the district
constitutional
ban on same
s motion to interve ne
of the following
to establish that this Court will grant
will
NOM
all
can be
Court
achieve
relief
has failed to establish a reasonable probability that
The road
denial of
effective
a dismissal of
has offered nothing
the
643 F 3d 701
NOM
court
ruling that
NOM
establish that
Ninth Circuit precedent
moot once
party to this case intends to appeal from the district
must also
consideration
is
Inc
moot an
that the district
West Coast Seafood
because no
dismissing as
judgment and therefore
appeal as
a case
Defense Council
motion to intervene because the underlying
dismissed
in
proposed intervenor s appeal
no party app eals
National
so holding
its
is
sex marriage
violates the
even more challenging than
In order to reach this Court
1 convince
court
for the
NOM
must
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to
11
disregard
its
precedent
and deny the
appeal of the motion to intervene as
of Appeals that
discretionary
to intervene
the district
lacked
right to
was
untimely
persuasive
if
proceedings
in the district
argument to uphold the
the district
NOM
s ban on
same
establish Article III
this
on
Court should grant a stay
NOM
NOM
argues that this Court
certiorari
Application
is
court a
as
district
NOM
has
that
court or
appears
to
at
but lose the appeal
from
NOM
NOM
s appeal
focuses
fails to establish that
this
12 19
one day grant
dealing with a similar issue to the one that
establish
purposes of
by the
in this case
and even there
may
NOM
standing to appeal the district
Court to grant
that final step
sex marriage
conclusion
from the Ninth Circuit s decision on the merits
almost exclusively
for
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
7 convince
of
that
obtain a reversal of
offer the district
same
s motion
Appeals
members
to and thoroughly considered
court were to reach the
new judgment
and only then
state
NOM
that
court
court s
district
the Ninth Circuit Court of
judgment and order withdrawn
existing
presume would occur
court
review of the
not already been presented
3 persuade
NOM
convi nce the Ninth Circuit Court
that court erred in determining
court s ruling denying
have the
additional
court erred in determining that three individual
significant
the district
moot
in spite of the highly deferential
determination
motion to dismiss
state defendants
certiorari in
the subject of
litigat
a case
ion in this
12
whether a
case
under the federal
NOM
lines
whether
s ban on
same sex
NOM
constitution
this
1972
state
Application
may
NOM
Court s summary dismissal
Application
at
15
in
While
is
it
consider similar legal issues in a different
NOM
satisfy the requirement that
grant certiorari in this case
same
issues might
parties
and
come
different
NOM
again
correctly
issue tha
even
NOM
reaching
this
that
mere
810
remains good
may
possibility
does not
probability that this Court
reasonable
enough to suggest
and
granted
same
to this Court raising that
that the
different
is
Court s docket
the
many
See Munaf v
Court
make
it
much
it
it
works
will
body of
can predict with any
this case
victories
this
time a consistent
at this
other cases
legal issue as
certiorari in this case in order to reac
could achieve
certiorari to
And many
Whether
courts
circuit
not something the state defendants
Court would grant
if
US
possible that this Court
arises in this case
But the procedural questions throughout
this
409
Nelson
in this litigation
simply no
grant certiorari to consider what
is
certiorari to decide
notes that this Court previously
through various district
holdings
Along the same
state interests
are likely to be presented
way
is
13
s rights
before this Court in a different case involving
consider the constitutional
its
Baker v
case
show a
It
12
at
one day grant
of similar questions to those presented
law
will
marriage violates a plaintiff
certainty
less likely
h those
legal
that
legal issues
would need before ever
Geren
553
S 674 690 2008
13
question as to jurisdiction
difficult
success on the merits
potential
other than making such success
impediments to even reaching
At best
if
broadly reverse
this
Court were to take a case from another
in the hypothetical
by the
the merits again considered
could obtain a
possibility is far
more
summary
from the
unlikely due to
jurisdi ction
court reached in Oregon
future in which
court
district
NOM
then
it
probability
NOM
and
would be possible
must
NOM
must overcome to have
Court grant
this
merits in this case were less insurmountable
this
that
That remote
establish in order
Even
to have this Court issue a stay of the order and judgment in this case
the obstacles
and
manages to have
reversal for further consideration
reasonable
likelihood of
the merits
the conclusions the district
would reach again
NOM
says nothing about the
certiorari
if
on the
Court should refuse to grant a
stay in this case because the other factors the Court will consider weigh against
the issuance of a stay
III
NOM
reverse either the
intervene or the district
Again
the district
ruling
NOM
showing
court s denial of
that
intervention
it
court
conflates the
on the merits of
would
Without
court
district
two
NOM
plaintiffs
it
s denial of
NOM
judgment on
rulings
it
that this
Court
claims
on
NOM
its
will
s motion to
the merits
seeks to have this Court stay
s motion to intervene and the district
likely prevail
that
fair prospect
has
challenge
failed to
meet
its
court s
burden of
to the denial of
can never hope to challenge
the merits of the
14
district
court s judgment
district
court s denial of
Even
NOM
setting aside
of overcoming the
the difficulty
NOM
s motion to inter vene
has
to
failed
show a
likelihood of success on the merits to warrant a stay from this Court
sufficient
NOM
challenge
its
to the district
s denial of
of success
NOM
on
s motion to
and as not presenting a proposed
intervene as untimely
intervenor
court
fair prospect
with a significant protectable interest in the
litigation
As
court
district
grounds
NOM
discussed
s denial of
in support of its
failed
NOM
above
its
ruling
that
NOM
its
the district
court
that
showing
it
has a
for either
NOM
this
in overturning
district
was
the
ed two
court provid
untimely and that
members has a
Court to stay
significant
NOM
that ruling
of overturning both of the grounds for
prospect
fair
s denial of
The
s motion
three
For
that
challenges
motion to intervene
to establish that any of
must show
many
faces
It
has
failed
to
make
ground
NOM
successfully
it
has a chance
of
reversing the district court s discretionary
determination
that
NOM
was
untimely
NOM
the district
Circuit
is
this case
has
court
failed to demonstrate
a likelihood of success on an appeal from
s discretionary denial of intervention as untimely
unlikely to overturn that discretionary determination
Whether an application to intervene
is
timely
is
The Ninth
on the
measured
facts
by the
of
15
when
stage of the proceedings
existing
from any
Alaniz v
delay
439
parties
S 837 1978
was
intervene
defendants
Thus
Tillie
that
Lewis Foods
As
file
572 F 2d 657 659
above
set forth
determined
that the
district
its
motion to intervene
hearing
again
court found as fact
as the district
Attorney
legal officer
was
as early as October
38
2013
Id
NOM
considering intervention since February
Rosenblum
motion to intervene
district
failing
court found
No
Ct Dkt
that
But
NOM
2014
been known
itself
s ban on
for
Yet
NOM
Attorney
that
s chief
same sex
that
it
had been
General
she would not defend the
waited two more months before
simply failed to submit any
member
of
And
many months and
acknowledged
2014 when
to determine whether any Oregon
was
it
months
on the eve of the summary judgment hearing
NOM
sought to
state
115 p 46
for three
Oregon
held a press conference to announce
NOM
the determination by the state
similarly
And
which
hours before the dispositive
General Rosenblum
had
in
denied
cert
sex marriage was unconstitutional
which had been scheduled
unconstitutional
9th Cir
as early as January
until
for the length of
summary judgment motions which
the case would be resolved on
2014
prejudice to the
given that the appellee
court found as fact
summary judgment
marriage
the litigation
ban on same
the court set to be heard in April
did not
and the reasons
result ing delay
resolved relatively quickly
and as the
evident
its
As
filing
the
credible reason for
organization had
its
16
and protectable
significant
ago
ready to argue
request
No
Dkt
Ct
115 p 48
Given
court did not abuse
the district
that the district
asserts
allegations with respect to
wrong
court failed to accept
in
court
made
accordance
by the
district
does not contend
Instead
with evidence
it
that those
briefed and
NOM
NOM
appears that
is
wrong
true
again
by the
Dkt
Ct
NOM
and
The
conclude
ignores
did
is
are not
that th
NOM
115 pp
about
And
45 48
alleged
its
reasons for
its
NOM
its
delay were not
from the question whether
a credible reason
accept
that its justifications
were not credible and were
state defendants
motion to
question whether to accept a
allegation is
nonetheless
set forth in its
NOM
NOM
33
parties in the litigation
No
find that
nonconclusory
in fact
it
at
believes that the court could not accept
allegation as true is separate
and
nonconclusory
findings are not supported by the record
nonconclusory
court can
that
But what
its
Appli cation
and the
court
set forth
additional
nonconclusory allegations as
district
fully
above and beyond what
findings of fact
what events occurred and when
credible
NOM
timing as true
its
arguing that they should not have been
and
was
its
Each of the nonconclusory allegations
intervene were accepted
district
that the case
to intervene at that point in the proceedings
NOM
is
as they stated in their brief only days
interests until
insufficient
for
choosing
NOM
that
to delay action
s allegations as true but
for waiting
to appear in this case
to support intervention
The
17
In
sum
concluding
abused
the record reflects no abuse of discretion by the district
NOM
that
s motion
their discretion
on the basis of
timeliness
prospect
discreti
of success in
a proceeding
NOM
fails to grapple with the difficulty
onary
ruling
by the
this
NOM
district
it
faces
it
has a
fair
as untimely
has a chance
of
court s denial of
s motion to intervene because
members
that
the denial of intervention
reversing the
it
court on the question of
successfully
three
district
Court any reason to conclude
to reverse
effort
its
NOM
at later points in
facts
has not given
It
While other courts have not
untimely
in permitting intervention
different
in overturning
was
court in
none
of
NOM
has the necessary interest in the
litigation
NOM
the district
its
in
NOM
who
a county
in
sex marriage
voted
for
The
plaintiffs
litigation
whom
argument tha
that
described above
has a
it
had any
NOM
members an
religious or other objection
religious or other personal objection
subject of the
in
show
interests of three
might have to other people s marriages provide no
interest in the actual
to
its
Measure 36 a wedding planner and a clerk working
Oregon each of
Whatever
failed
As
motion to intervene on the purported
individual
of success on
fair prospect
court erred in determining that
significant
based
has not established a
which
under the federal
NOM
litigation
at
significant
The
same
those individuals
protectable
hand
seeks to intervene concerns
constitution
to
the rights of
resolution of plaintiffs
specific
18
unconnected
legal claims is
members
of
NOM
was no remedy
members
three
interests
The
to the moral and religious objections of these three
for their injury that could
or carried out
and those of
its
by
NOM
members were
remedy instead was addressed
who
court found in favor of plaintiffs
district
NOM
be ordered against
or those three
never
appropriately
but there
or any of
NOM
members
its
The
at issue in the litigation
to the government defendants
were enforcing the same sex marriage prohibition
It
a claim
is
conceivable
related to
that
same sex
some
of the three individuals
might eventually have
marriages occurring in Oregon
but
it
would
necessarily be a completely different claim than has been adjudicated in this
case
For example
services
to
same sex
couples
w ith
religious objection
persons
accommodation
account
O R
of race
or age
Photography
if
advantages
without
color
distinction
religion
the individual
309 P 3d 53
Mexico by wedding
of challenge
any
and
facilities
is
sex
18
sexual orientation
to application
to
nation origin
marital
See also Elane
of similar statute in
same sex
with or without plaintiffs
and equal
or restriction on
years of age or older
challenge
full
all
of any place of public
discrimination
photographer opposed
could happen
privileges
might
S 659A 403
within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the
accommodations
to providing
might be asked to provide those services
and might be the subject of a complaint under
object
status
the wedding planner
marriages
succeeding
New
That type
on the merits of
19
Even
their litigation
couples
services
same
if
married in another
sex marriages were not
jurisdiction could
to have a ceremony in Oregon
not in whether the plaintiffs
or other
But the wedding planner
same
license to a
sex couples
same sex
to any
who
official
some
basis to challenge
accommodation
but that litigation
same sex couple
Even
if
the three
Oregon
same
has a personal objection to providing
seeking
members
of
NOM
they have failed to
such as having a
The county
clerk might
the refusal of the county to provide an
would not be directed
at the plaintiffs
for
purposes of the emergency
have a concern about same
make any showing
had been permitted to intervene
additional
appeal
reason
NOM
has
or any
to obtain a license
assumes
this court
sign the license
and might
that they
stay motion
sex marriages
would have
at the district
court level
fair
prospect
For
in
Article
standing to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or to this Court
NOM
is
sex couples
might be asked to do so might object
couple
deputy clerk or other county
that
s interest
can marry but whether
not be able to obtain any accommodation from the county
other
sex
Similarly a county clerk
then have
Oregon same
seek out tho se wedding planning
the wedding planner can refuse to provide services
because of
legal in
III
even
if
that
of success
o n
20
The member who
voted
interest in the constitutional
We
Hollingsworth v
of a state statute
We
for the fir
decline to
do so
their marriage lacks
marriage on appeal
Article
objection to
who
individual
litigation
is
same sex
same
NOM
the district
has
court
untimely and
couple
many
but
sex marriage
who
who may
seeking
to celebrate
who may
or
of that
be asked to
has only a personal and not an
For both the wedding planner and the
whether they have a
may
their objections
right to not play
lead to other
role in
same
sex
claims of a right to marry
to plaintiffs
constitution
s denial of
NOM
its
challenges
motion to intervene
fair
failed to establish that
necessary
NOM
prospect
motion to intervene
protectable interest in this litigation
the
couple
a county clerk
true for
have chosen not to
wedding planner
same sex
to a
but they have no connection
under the federal
officials
happens to be a county clerk
concerning
marriage
state
standing to challenge
III
The same
provide a license to a
when
st time here
not be asked to provide services
official
133 S Ct 2652 2668
Perry
have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend
may
sex marriage ban has no greater
to the ban than any other voter in Oregon
challenge
and lacks standing to appeal
2013
same
for the
any of
Moreover
its
of success in
NOM
has not demonstrated
that
s motion
members h
even
if
NOM
court
it
its
appeal of
was
as a significant
could overcome
s denial of
has Article
III
its
standing
21
to appeal the district
showing needed
has
failed to
make
the
Court to issue of stay of the motion to intervene
for this
NOM
NOM
s final judgment
court
has failed to demonstrate a fair prospect of success on
sex marriage even
if
Oregon
NOM
s constitutional
had any
establish the necessary Article III
ban on same
or could
basis to intervene
standing for an appeal on
the merits
The arguments
NOM
others have presented
Application
at
in
19 31
an
presents to this Court are the
effort to
None
same argum
defend bans on same
of those arguments have been successful
No 13 1861 2014 WL
For purposes of
two
this
MD
emergency
motion
for
a stay the
collecting
state defendants
13
in the
See Whitewood
May 20 2014
Penn
NOM
sex marriage
federal courts to consider and address similar challenges
Wolf
ents
cases
focus
on
primary points
the arguments
First
same sex
NOM
withstand
reached the conclusion
judicial scrutiny
they
jurisdictions to support similar
court
NOM
carefully
that the state
Oregon
s ban on
bans and they presented
are unsupported
in this case
defendants
took very seriously
The
record
their obligations
the state s legal position
made
in other
that analysis to the
abandoned
shows
under
While
s ban could not
analyzed the arguments
s claims that the state defendants
obligations
present
in support of
marriage were not hidden from the district court in this case
district
would present
state
their
that the state
law to develop
and
considering not only possible arguments that
22
could be
made
in support of the
arguments would
obligation
all
now
marriage
arguments
Thus
Court s
that
a same
Application
As
at
is
about
NOM
either at the district
The second
was
fully
sex marriage ban
is
As
from the
in reaching
s opinion
its
NOM
in the litigation
would
reason
is little
alter that
conclusion
court or on appeal
point concerns
district
court
claim about the rights of
it
the court carefully
conclusion and there
NOM
s reliance on what
s equal protection
man
one
woman
holding
institution
remains
sex couples
at its core
state
describes
its
has no
court
to marry
specific
NOM
explained in the district
same
it
contradicting
to any legitimate government interest
but
and the
to support a traditional
necessary
court
district
s participation
the nation
Nelson
and a preferred parenting arrangemen
defining marriage as a one
28
rights of
informed of the arguments
decision in Baker v
large and growing body of social science research
relationship
those
the state s general authority in the area of
summary
prior
analyzed the issues presented
premise of the
how
19 24 28 30
apparent
to believe that
but also
to protect the federal constitutional
the district court
puts forward
this
marriage ban
with other legal policies of the state as well as the
fit
Oregonians
NOM
same sex
may
claim
as
the
the central
conclusion that
rational
Application
at
24
an eq ual protection
be a concern across
The
state defendants
23
agree with
Ct
2675
NOM
2013
determining
the state
on
this point
this
the laws that will govern
in the context of all of
domestic
relations
NOM
order to put forth a
defense
same sex
and
tradition
show
and mother and
marriages to increase
NOM
NOM
that
it
Some
have severely
Such an
this
Court s cases
children
would be
do
best
when
rational for
the likelihood that children will
Application
at
24 25
This line of
should not be permitted to intervene in this
disregard for the values
states
and
s legal principles in
marriage
that
to stand in the shoes of the state defendants
shows a complete
state
of the state
Windsor or any other of
their biological parents
why
in the area of marriage
many
of the ban on
father
same sex
argument underscores
litigation
in
jettison
argues that research
raised by their biological
be raised by
have analyzed the claims raised by
Oregon law
would
argument finds no support
to prohibit
133 S
Windsor
marriage and domestic relations within
state defendants
plaintiffs
state
United States v
in
recognized that states have a great deal of latitude in
But while the
NOM
Court
O regon
because the argument
has adopted
restricted the ability
of
same
as the law of the
sex couples
not
only to marry but also to establish legal relations with the children being raised
by those couples or to adopt children or care
foster
care system
Oregon has not
recognized the value of
OR
S 106 305
The
same sex
district
To
for child ren through the state
the contrary
couples
Oregon has long
as parents and as families
court carefully considered
See
Oregon public policy
24
and
its
20 26
longstanding values
NOM
and appeal
its
s arguments to this Court
establish in this area
See
decision
and
to any appellate court
this case
has chosen to
in reaching
if
its
Ct
No
Dkt
118
ignore what Oregon
well
established sovereign
authority over domestic relations within the state
Thus
even
this
if
dealing with a state
Court agrees to consider an appeal
merits of any litigation
in
court undertook carefully
Oregon
it
may
marriage
The
Oregon
considered
Court s case law develops
for
same sex
s ban on
be appropriate
in
from implementing the
defendants
same sex
Executive Branch
Court someday
IV
state
which answers to the
party to analyze and potentially
alter the legal
for
not fully resolve the
it
should
that
now
s laws in such a
prohibits
way
citizens of
new
Oregon and
is
questions raised
irreparable
element
harm
will
that
result
surrounding these issues
from a
final
as to deny
should this
result
The
the
the proper
this
s Executive
NOM
denial of
If
rest entirely with the state
address any
landscape
as
Oregon
the injunction
That decision should
marriage
case
call in to question that analysis
a future case
Branch to consider whether to challenge
state
may
of Oregon law
such a manner to
in
it
in another
equal protection analysis the district
all
harm
will
stay
NOM
must
establish to obtain
from denial of a
stay
pp
they are permitted to intervene
completely
exercising
Again
a stay
NOM
is
has
that
failed to
25
make
NOM
the required showing
points to a number of possible harms
none would accrue to the three members
This
litigation
is
NOM
Oregon
NOM
Application
It
is
not up to
its
NOM
months or years from
court
Whatever
there
at
what might happen to the
the district
state
not be harmed
will
defendants
may
be
now
those marriages
if
NOM
same sex
citizens
or the couples
it
to seek a stay based on
state
in
and
a way
its
the state
being married throughout
With respect
have considered the
further
in
now
34 37
simply
who
its
is
not up to
are entering into
purported concerns
citizens should the
law change one
calls into question the validity of
that
s considerations for
litigation
should that day ever
Pennsylvania
are
harm
s orders here
the issues resolved in this case
problem
who
sex couples
to speak for the state
marriages
day
Oregon and
claims that denial of a stay will
and the same
Oregonians
about
in
to take place
Instead
NOM
purports to represent in this
presumably because they have not been harmed by the same
sex marriages taking place
continue
it
but
which
its
potential
in this area that
The
come
three individual
harms and
left
risks that
might require
the
someday
revisiting
state is willing to address that
some of
thorny
as will oth er states such as California and
judicial decisions striking
marriage were
members
to stand without
down
the state
s ban on
an appeal on the merits
26
For
NOM
now
an
now
there
is
See
s assertions
no uncertainty confronted by Oregon contrary to
NOM
Application
at
37
Instead
same sex
couples
are
obtaining access not only to the state benefits previously offered through
alternative to marriage
also to the
many
federal benefits tha
Governor and chief
the district
court
Oregon s registered domestic partnerships
legal officer
attach only to marriage
are willing to take whatever
s ruling along with those
to seek to prolong this litigation
should be granted
to
same sex
same
and deny the
couples
in
sex couples
rights
Oregon
If
the state
risks
it
the district
is
but
accompany
not for
NOM
court found
27
Conclusion
NOM
has
failed to
stay of the district court
court
deny
meet any of the
s denial of
NOM
s order and judgment in this case
NOM
criteria
must
it
establish to obtain
s motion to intervene or the district
The
ask
state defendants
this
Court to
s motion for a stay
Respectfully
submitted
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
ANNA
753239
General
Attorney
JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
MARY H WILLIAMS
General
anna joyce
mary h
doj state or us
williams
Attorneys
for
John Kitzhaber
Jennifer
AMJ
blt
5346230
msn com
Defendants
Woodward
Appelleees
Rosenblum
Randy Waldruff
Ellen
PROOF OF MAILING RESPONSE OF OREGON STATE DEFENDANTS

IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT S MOTION FOR
STAY PENDING APPEAL
on
Anna
May 30 2014
State Defendants
as appellee
in the
a member of the Bar of the Court hereby
Joyce
in
compliance with Rule 29
in Opposition
above
entitled
to Applicant
case
Washington
DC
mailed the
Response of Oregon
s Motion for Stay Pending
by depositing 3 copies thereof
United States mailbox express overnight
the Office of the Clerk
certify that
Supreme Court
mail
postage prepaid
Appeal
in the
addressed
First Street
20543
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
ANNA
753239
General
Attorney
JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
MARY H WILLIAMS
General
anna joyce
mary h
doj state or us
williams
Attorneys
for
Defendants
John Kitzhaber
Jennifer
AMJ
blt
5346230
msn com
Woodward
Appelleees
Rosenblum
Randy Waldruff
Ellen
to
I
on
certify that
May 30 2014
Oregon State Defendants
Appeal
attached
in Opposition
via e mail and via United
each of the
parties
service
and
at
directed the original Response
to Applicant
of
s Motion for Stay Pending
States Postal Service
class delivery
first
each party s regular mailing address as shown
in the
list
Respectfully
submitted
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
ANNA
753239
General
Attorney
JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
MARY H WILLIAMS
anna joyce
mary h
General
doj state or us
williams
msn com
for Defendants
Appelleees
Attorneys
Jennifer
AMJ
blt
5346230
Woodward
Randy
to
Waldruff
SERVICE LIST
Ann
Lea
Law
1
Easton
881413
Office of Craig Dorsay
SW
Suite
Columbia
97258
Email
dorsayindianlaw
James
983213
Perriguey
1906 S
Portland
Street
Oregon 97205
503 227 1928
Telephone
Email
com
Portland
975 Oak
Schaller
Street Suite
PC
1050
Oregon 97401
Eugene
541 683 2506
Telephone
503 227 6928
Email
Kristina J
NW
Portland
Telephone
112607
LLP
90017
213 977 9500
Email
aclu org
Jenny
Madkour
Office of the
Couch 10
Floor
Oregon 97209
503 727 2157
Multnomah County
Attorney
501 S E Hawthorne Blvd

Portland
Telephone
perkinscoie
982980
th
Email
com
Suite
Oregon 97214
503 988 3138
Email
jenny
Continued
California
or org
Holm
Perkins Coie
com
Eighth Street
Telephone
agoad
aclu
jjlslaw
Los Angeles
Oregon 97240
Telephone
kjholm
071510
Jennifer Middleton
1313
Box 40585
1120
com
perkinscoie
Amanda Goad
of Oregon
kdiaz
Email
jmiddleton
970480
Kevin Diaz
503 727 2176
Email
law works
ACLU
97209
Oregon
Johnson Johnson
Madison
10th Floor
com
Law Works LLC
lake
Couch
trjohnson
leaston
010645
LLP
Telephone
503 790 9060
Telephone
Lake
NW
Portland
Oregon
Johnson
Perkins Coie
1120
440
Portland
Thomas
m madkour
multco us
500
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie
1120
NW
Portland
Telephone
086430
Katharine
LLP
Couch 10
Floor
Oregon 97209
503 727 2086
blt
Attorney
501 S E Hawthorne Blvd

Portland
Telephone
s Office
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
503 988 3138
Email
perkinscoie
com

or us
AMJ
032300
Ter Stegge
Multnomah County
th
Email
misaak
Von
5346230
co multnomah
Sent
VON TER STEGGE

H
Jenny MADKOUR
jenny m morf
5 30 2014 1 45 59 PM
Subject
Re
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Sheila
Geiger case
DRAFT S
multco us
Ct response
Hi Sheila
This draft looks really good
and
long
We
would
like
to join
Thank you for doing
of this
all
work
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
May
Fri
30 2014
at
12 13
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Kate and Jenny
A ached
is
caption
stu,
join
and
condential
draft of a response to the
but the meat of the brief
is
99
NOM
there
Give
motion
me
you have questions or thoughts on the arguments
if
for stay
call
to
let
Still
tweaking some
me know
if
technical
the county would like to
Thanks
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Phone
Th
Phone
Tu
Justice
971 673 5026
503 947 4688
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
Salem
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
Portland
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
H
VON TER STEGGE
Jenny MADKOUR
jenny m morf
multco
5 30 2014 4 11 21 PM
RE Geiger case DRAFT S Ct response
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Katharine
CC
Sent
Subject
Great
I m going to assume that
that s right
my inclination is
Anna
as the
ones
on the
us
neither of you is admitted into the U S

Supreme
to put you both on the caption at the start
but
signature block
as the
ones
who
can
appear
at
the
Court
If
keep Mary and
Court
Work
for
you
From
Katharine
VON TER
Sent
Friday
May 30
To
Potter Sheila H
Cc
Jenny MADKOUR
Subject
Re
STEGGE
2014
jenny
mailto
katevts
multco us
1 46 PM
m morf multco us
Geiger case
DRAFT
S Ct response
Hi Sheila
This
draft
looks
really good
and
long
We
would
like
to
join
Thank
you for doing
all
of
this work
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
On
Fri
May 30
Kate
potter
and
Attached
988
500
Portland
3377
co
2014
12 13 PM
at
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
katevts
doj state
Multnomah

Potter
or us mailto
Sheila
sheila
multco us
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
Jenny
is
technical
if
the
Thanks
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
sheila
County
a confidential
caption
county
stuff
would
draft
but
like
to
of
a response
the
meat
join
and
to
of
the
if
you have
the
brief is
NOM
motion for stay
99
there
questions
Give
Still
me a call
or thoughts
on the
tweaking
to
let
some
me know
arguments
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Oregon
Chief Trial Counsel

Potter
Phone
Phone
Tu
Th
W
971
503
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
673
947
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
tel
keep
503
information
applicable
that
tel
971
673
947
5026
4688
Portland
Salem
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
5026
4688
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
Sent
MADKOUR
Sheila H
5 30 2014 4 54 39 PM
Subject
Re
Geiger case
put
me
From
Jenny
To
Potter
CC
am
On
May
Friday
Great
my
You can
admitted
30 2014
m going to
inclination is to put
signature
From
Sent
block
Sheila
Potter
Cc
Jenny
jenny
m morf
multco us
Ct response
sheila
potter
you
is
you both on the caption
who
as the ones
VON TER STEGGE

2014 1 46 PM
Sheila H
MADKOUR jenny m morf
Subject
that neither of
Katharine
admi ed
into the
at the start
multco
US
but keep
Work
can appear at the Court
mailto katevts
wrote
doj state or us
for
Supreme Court
If
Mary and Anna as
that s right
the ones on the
you
us
May 30
Friday
To
MADKOUR
on the signature block as well
Potter
assume
DRAFT S
Jenny
Re
DRAFT
Geiger case
multco
us
S Ct response
Hi Sheila
and
long
We
would
like
to join
Thank you for doing
all
of this
work
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Fri
May
30 2014
at
12 13
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Kate and Jenny
A ached
is
caption
stu,
join
and
Sheila
if
condential
is
99
NOM
there
Give
motion
me
for stay
call
to
Thanks
let
Still
tweaking some
me know
if
technical
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Phone
Th
Phone
Tu
Justice
971 673 5026
503 947 4688
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
If
e mail in error
please advise
Jenny
Salem
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
Portland
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
and
or the attachments
may
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
H
MADKOUR
6 2 2014 8 31 23 AM
RE Geiger case DRAFT S Ct
From
Potter
To
CC
Sent
Subject
Preparing
to
send
it
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
Subject
I
Sheila
Re
Friday
sheila
out
Jenny
jenny
2014
4 55 PM
STEGGE
Geiger case
You
can
May 30
as the
put
2014
m madkour
have
your authority to
sign for her
multco us
on the
jenny
m morf multco us
S Ct response
me on the
Potter
doj state
ones
Mary
Jenny MADKOUR
DRAFT
signature block
Sheila
or us mailto
Great
I m going to assume that
that s right
my inclination is
Anna
response
VON TER
potter
does
mailto
May 30
am admitted
On
Sheila
Jenny
as well
H
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
neither of you is admitted into the U S

Supreme
to put you both on the caption at the start
but
signature block
as the
ones
who
can
appear
at
the
7B
Court
If
keep Mary and
Court
Work
for
you
From
7D
Sent
Katharine
VON TER
To
Potter
Cc
Jenny MADKOUR
7D
STEGGE
mailto
katevts
multco us javascript
cvml
katevts multco us
Friday
May 30
2014 1 46 PM
Sheila
cvml
Subject
H
jenny
jenny
Re
m morf multco us javascript
7B
m morf multco us
Geiger case
DRAFT
S Ct response
Hi Sheila
This
draft
looks
really good
and
long
We
would
like
to
join
Thank
you for doing
all
of
this work
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
7D
On
Fri
503
e
co
potter
wrote
Kate and
Jenny
Attached
is
technical
if
the
988
katevts
May 30
Attorney
Suite
javascript
cvml
sheila
County
2014
500
at
Chief
97214
like
multco us http
Potter
or us javascript
draft
but
to
Sheila
Deputy
Attorney
fax
12 13 PM
Thanks
Sheila
County
7B
stuff
would
OR
multnomah or us
a confidential
county
Portland
3377
doj state
caption
Multnomah
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Sheila
e
meat
join
and
7B 7D
a response
the
multco us
to
of
the
if
you have
the
brief is
cvml
sheila
potter
NOM
motion for stay
99
there
questions
Give
doj state
Still
me a call
or thoughts
on the
or us
tweaking
to
let
some
me know
arguments
Oregon
Department
of
Phone
971
Phone
Tu
Th
503
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
Jenny M
5026
4688
Portland
Salem
information
the
law
If
received
contents
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
Madkour
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
503
988
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
This
the
attorney
the
sender
you
673
947
from your system
Attorney
NOTICE
971
503
NOTICE
you have
keep
tel
tel
applicable
that
County
SE
5026
4688
e mail may contain
disclosure
fax
673
947
3377
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
you have
by reply email
and
may contain
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
From
Jenny
To
Potter
Sent
6 2
MADKOUR
Sheila H Katharine VON TER STEGGE
2014 8 53 55 AM
Subject
Re
Geiger case
DRAFT S
Ct response
Yes
Thanks for your work
Jenny
on
this
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
On Mon
message
From
Sent
Jun 2 2014
Jenny
Friday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
On
my
8 31
AM
mailto
You can
put
30 2014
block
Jenny
me
Potter
Jenny
Subject
Hi Sheila
Mary
by
reply email
sheila
information
and
potter
by
protected
then destroy
all
the attorney
copies of
this
doj state or us
have your authority to sign
multco
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
received
this
Thank you
wrote
for her
us
Potter
assume
S Ct
Sheila
sheila
who
multco us
you
is
mailto katevts
DRAFT
admi ed
multco
us
S Ct response
into the
at the start
multco
wrote
doj state or us
can appear at the Court
May 30
Geiger case
morf
potter
you both on the caption
as the ones
jenny
response
that neither of
VON TER STEGGE

2014 1 46 PM
Sheila H
MADKOUR jenny m morf
Re
MADKOUR
on the signature block as well
Katharine
Cc
Sheila
m madkour
DRAFT
Geiger case
May
Friday
To
Potter
jenny
H
VON TER STEGGE
m going to
signature
Sent
2014 4 55 PM
inclination is to put
From
may
Jenny does
out
it
May 30
Re
Friday
at
MADKOUR
admitted
Great
or the attachments
Sheila
Subject
am
and
Preparing to send
500
Suite
Oregon 97214
Portland
us
US
but keep
Work
for
Supreme Court
Mary and Anna as
you
If
that s right
the ones on the
and
long
We
would
like
to join
Thank you for doing
of this
all
work
Kate von Ter Stegge
Multnomah
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
500
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
May
Fri
30 2014
at
12 13
PM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Kate and Jenny
A ached
is
caption
stu,
join
and
condential
is
99
NOM
there
Give
motion
me
if
for stay
call
to
let
Still
tweaking some
me know
if
technical
Thanks
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Phone
Th
Phone
Tu
Justice
971 673 5026
503 947 4688
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
Salem
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
Portland
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
and
or the attachments
may
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
From
Potter
To
Jenny
H
MADKOUR
Sheila
Sent
6 2 2014 8 54 50
Subject
RE
Will
do
thank
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Monday
Potter
Subject
mailto
June
Sheila
Re
DRAFT S
Geiger case
Ct response
you
From
To
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
AM
02
H
jenny
2014
Katharine
Geiger case
m madkour
multco us
8 54 AM
VON TER
DRAFT
STEGGE
S Ct response
Yes
Thanks
for your work
Jenny M
Madkour
County
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
SE
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
fax
on this
988
503
NOTICE
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
3377
This
the
attorney
the
sender
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
may contain
you have
by reply email
and
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
you
On
Mon
sheila
Jun 2
2014
potter
doj state
Preparing
to
send
it
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Cc
Katharine
jenny
Jenny
Re
Friday
sheila
jenny
2014
4 55 PM
Great
You
STEGGE
can
May 30
that
s right
Anna
as the
2014
to
m madkour
jenny
have
doj state
or us
wrote
your authority to
multco us mailto
jenny
sign for her
m madkour
multco us
Potter
signature block
Sheila
or us mailto
assume that
on the
m morf multco us
S Ct response
me on the
my inclination
ones
Jenny MADKOUR
DRAFT
put
doj state
m going
Mary
H
potter
Geiger case
potter
Sheila
sheila
does
mailto
VON TER
am admitted
On
Potter
or us mailto
out
May 30
Sheila
8 31 AM
Subject
I
at
is
H
sheila
neither
to
as well
put
of
potter
you is
you both
signature block
doj state
admitted
on the
as the
ones
or us
into
caption
who
can
the
at
wrote
U S
the
appear
Supreme
start
at
the
but
Court
Court
keep
Work
If
Mary
and
for
you
From
Katharine
Sent
Friday
To
Potter
Cc
Jenny MADKOUR
Subject
Re
VON TER
May 30
Sheila
STEGGE
2014
mailto
katevts
multco us
1 46 PM
H
jenny
Geiger case

DRAFT
jenny
m morf multco us
S Ct response
Hi Sheila
This
draft
looks
really good
and
long
We
would
like
to
join
Thank
you for doing
all
of
this work
Kate
von
Ter
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
County
Suite
tel
3138
503
multco us http
On
May 30
Fri
Kate
and
Attached
the
Multnomah
Portland
3138
503
OR
988
County
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
3377
fax
multco us
at
12 13 PM
doj state
Potter
or us mailto
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
Jenny
is
technical
if
2014
potter
500
988
katevts
sheila
Attorney
a confidential
caption
county
stuff
would
draft
but
like
to
of
a response
the
meat
join
and
to
of
the
if
you have
the
brief is
NOM
motion for stay
99
there
questions
Give
Still
me a call
or thoughts
on the
tweaking
to
let
some
me know
arguments
Thanks
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Oregon
Department
of
Phone
971
Phone
Tu
Th
Trial Counsel
F
503
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
Jenny M
5026
4688
Portland
Salem
information
the
law
If
received
contents
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
Madkour
501
Hawthorne
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
503
988
3138
988
This
the
attorney
the
sender
you
673
947
from your system
Attorney
NOTICE
971
503
NOTICE
you have
keep
tel
tel
applicable
that
County
SE
5026
4688
e mail may contain
disclosure
fax
673
947
3377
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
tel
503
tel
message
client
503
and
2F988
2F988
or the
privilege
immediately
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
3377
attachments
If
you have
by reply email
and
may contain
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
From
Potter
To
Tom
Sent
6 2 2014 9 33 51
Subject
checking
We
e mailed a service
now
let
me know
Sheila
m worried
if
that
Sheila
Johnson
copy
the
of
Perkins Coie
our response
e mail didn
you received
it
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie
Lea Ann Easton
AM
Thanks
make
this morning
it
to
any of
and
the
got
it
external
but
Mary
recipients
didn
Would
and
you
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 2 2014 9 34 41
Subject
RE
haven
received
Sheila
H Tom
AM
Johnson
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie
checking
it
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Tom
Subject
We
Sheila
Monday
June 02
Johnson
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
2014 9 34 AM
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
Perkins
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
checking
e mailed a service copy of our response this morning
worried that the e mail didn

received
it
make
and
got
it
but
to any of the external recipients
it
Mary
didnt
and
now
Would youlet me know
if
m
you
Thanks
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
6 2 2014 9 35 07
Subject
RE
Attachments
No A13
We
did
Here
It
a very good
is
our brief
is
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
Coie
AM
checking
1173
National Organization for MarriagevGeiger pdf
brief
just
filed
Coie
Johnson
now
Misha
Misha Isaak
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Monday
Johnson
Subject
We
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
mailto sheila
June 02
doj state or us
potter
2014 9 34 AM
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins

received
Lea Ann Easton
Coie
checking
it
make
and
got
it
but
it
Mary
now
and
didnt
if
m
you
Thanks
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
No A13 1173
In the
Supreme Court
NATIONAL
FOR MARRIAGE
ORGANIZATION
on behalf
of its
INC
Oregon members
Applicant
v
DEANNA
L GEIGER
JANINE
M NELSON
PAUL RUMMELL BENJAMIN WEST
ROBERT DUEHMIG WILLIAM GRIESAR
LISA CHICKADONZ CHRISTINE
TANNER and
FUND
Respondents
Plaintiffs
and
JOHN KITZHABER in
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
JENNIFER
WOODWARD
his official capacity

in her official
Statistics
RANDY WALRUFF
capacity
as Governor
of
Oregon
as Attorney General of Oregon

as State Registrar Center for Health
as Multnomah
County Assessor
Respondents
Defendants
Response In Opposition to Application to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal
DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE ANTHONY KENNEDY

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Steven
R Shapiro
Counsel of Record
D Esseks
A Saxe
Amanda C Goad
James
Rose
Thomas
Johnson
Misha Isaak
PERKINS COIE LLP
1120 NW Couch Street 10th
Portland OR 97209
Lea Ann Easton

DORSAY
EASTON LLP
1
Floor
Kevin Daz
OR
97204
Lake James
H Perriguey
LAW WORKS
LLC
SW
Madison Street
Portland OR 97205
1906
Cooperating attorneys
FOUNDATION OF OREGON
Box 40585
Portland OR 97240
PO
Columbia Street
Portland
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION FOUNDATION
Jennifer Middleton
125 Broad Street 18th Floor JOHNSON JOHNSON
SCHALLER PC
New York NY 10004
212.549.2611
Eugene OR 97401
sshapiro aclu org
ACLU
SW
Suite 440
INC
on behalf
of
Foundation
the
of
Attorneys for Respondents
ACLU
Oregon Inc
Plaintiffs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
INTRODUCTION
ARGUMENT
NOMs
Application
Reasonable
Should Be Denied Because There
Likelihood
Is
No
This Court Will Overturn the District
Courts Rulings
A
B
NOMs Motion
NOM
to Intervene
Was
Failed to Demonstrate
Untimely
a Significantly Protectable
11
Interest in This Case
The
District
Court Correctly Rejected NOMs
for Discretionary
NOM
Merits Ruling Because
NOM
This Court
Equities
A
B
Were
Likelihood
to Review
the
of
Success
on
Judgment
NOM
Seeks To Litigate
Weigh Heavily
Will
The Harm
Not
19
Against Issuance
of
a Stay
23
a Stay
Would Cause
to
Plaintiffs
23
Far Outweighs
NOM
24
This Case Differs Significantly from Other Recent Cases

in
NOMs
21
Suffer Irreparable Injury Absent a Stay
Any Purported Harm
III
17
This Case Does Not Appropriately Present the Issues that
NOM
The
If
District Courts
Lacks Standing to Appeal
Cannot Show a Reasonable
the Merits
II
15
This Court Is Not Likely to Overturn the
Arguments
Intervention
Which Stays Have Been Issued
Application
Properly
Is Procedurally
Moved Below
26
Deficient
for the Relief It
Now
As
It
Never
Requests
of
This
27
Court
CONCLUSION
29
APPENDIX A
Transcript of Hearing
on Motion
to Intervene
May 14 2014
CASES
Alaniz
Tillie
Lewis Foods 572
F2d
9th Cir 1978
657
U S 531 1987
Arizonans
English v Arizona 520 U S 43 1997
Baker v Nelson 409 U S 810 1972
Brotherhood
R R Trainmen v Baltimore O R Co 331 U S 519
Amoco Prod
Co v
Vill
Of Gambell 480
24
16
for Official
of
Citizens for Equal Protection
Clapper
United States 483
DeBoer
Snyder 973
Charles
Donaldson
USA
Amnesty International
Deaver
Diamond
Bruning 455
United
U S 1301
v Glickman
159
F3d 405
Sch
Gregory Portland Independent

Hall
Florida No
Heckler
Redbud
12 10882
Hospital
2014
Dist
Dist 473
Agency Review
In re Adoption of
Landis
Latta
Doe
Otter
WL
by statute on other
U S 310
1985
D Utah May
United States 448
U S 1308
11
11 12 13
2048343
19 2014
U S 1342
1980
May 27 2014
2178332
nom
2008
WL
5006172
9th
367
Dept of
Fla Cir Ct
v Means
Assn for Advancement
Human
Ark 55
26
21
1985
238
26 27
passim
2004
WL
Servs
S W 3d
1936
3154530
Child
1 2006
Nov 25 2008
21
20 21
22
26 27
Cir
F3d 1297 9th Cir 1997

300 F3d 1037 9th Cir 2002
McDonald
U S 345
sub
Bd v Howard
No 14 35420
Wilson 131
413
affd
N Am Co 299 U S 248
LULAC v
Natl
12 17
Kitchen 134
Ark Cir Ct Dec 29 2004

Welfare
20
United States 469
S Ct 893 Jan 6 2014

Hicks v Miranda 422 U S 332 1972
Hollingsworth v Perry 133 S Ct 2652 U S 2013
Howard v Child Welfare Agency Review Bd No 1999 9881
Herbert
19
1987
2014
WL
15
22
9th Cir 1998
v Utah No 2 14 CV55 DAK
Evans
1947
F3d 859 8th Cir 2006

S Ct 1138 2013
F Supp 2d 757 E D Mich 2014

476 U S 54 1986
States 400 U S 517 1971 superseded
grounds as noted in Tiffany Fine Arts

Donnelly
133
22
of Colored People
9
15
New York
4679
1973
ii
v Holder
Nken
556
U S 418
2009
23
Northland Family Planning Clinic Inc

Northwest Forest Resource Council
Perry
v Brown
671
F3d 1052
487
v Glickman
F Supp
Schwarzenegger 704
v Cox
82
F3d 323
F3d 825
ND Cal 2010
2d 921
6th Cir 2007
14
9th Cir 1996
12
affd
sub
9th Cir 2012 vacated and remanded sub
nom
Perry
nom
S Ct 2652 U S 2013
20
Tocher v City of Santa Ana 219 F 3d 1040 9th Cir 2000 abrogated by City of
Columbus v Ours Garage
Wrecker Serv Inc 536 U S 424 2002 and Tillison
Hollingsworth
City of
Perry 133
San Diego 406
United Airlines Inc
v McDonald
United States
United States
v Oregon
United States
United States
v Windsor
Winter
Yniguez
Blaine
432
745
F2d
86
Washington
133
550
Arizona 939
U S 385
1977
F Appx
7
9th Cir 2002
276
10
48
9th Cir 1984
F3d 1499
S Ct 2675
9th Cir 1996
17 21 22 25
2013
2d Cir 2012
Natural Res Def Council
9th Cir 2005
County Montana 37
U S 699 F3d 169
Windsor
F3d 1126
F2d 727
Inc
555
22
US 7
23 24
2008
Cir 1991
9th
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Brief of
Massachusetts California Connecticut
Illinois
Iowa Maine Maryland New Hampshire New
Vermont and Washington

Sandoval
Christian
No 12 17668
Mapes
9th Cir Dkt 24 Oct
Mexico
Columbia
New York Oregon
25 2013
File Suit Against Oregons
Ban on Gay
Dec 19 2013
Come by Summer
Jan 22 2014
Ruling on Gay Marriage Could
Consolidates
District of
as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants Sevcik
Gaston Two More Couples
Marriage Oregonian
Jeff
Delaware
Two Cases Oregonian
after Federal
Judge
RULES
Fed
Fed
Fed
Fed
Fed
R Civ P 24
R Civ P 24 a
R Civ P 24 a 2
R Civ P 24 b 1 B
R Civ P 24 b 3
Supreme Court Rule
4
4
4
4
47
23 3
1 27
iii
28
CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS
13
Oregon Constitution
89
iv
To
of the
Kennedy
the Honorable Anthony
United States and Circuit Justice
Associate
Supreme Court
Justice of the
United States Court
for the
of
Appeals
for
the Ninth Circuit
Duehmig
William Griesar Paul
Christine
Tanner and
Organization
for
NOMs
denial of
Rights Education
Basic
motion
to stay
NOM
Marriage Inc
Janine
M Nelson Robert
oppose the application
respectfully
L Geiger
Deanna
Plaintiffs Respondents
Fund
collectively the
judgment
pending
Lisa Chickadonz
filed
its
Plaintiffs
by the National
appeal
of the district
courts
intervene
to
INTRODUCTION
On May 19
judgment and
enjoined as unconstitutional
from the freedom
have announced
case
2
was
District
Rummell
it
for
NOM
samesex
exclusion of
national
summary
same sex
Plaintiffs,
couples now seeks a stay
of oral
there
is
of the district
of its intervention
against
referred to the two sets of plaintiffs

All citations
First
no reasonable
herein to the district
to
likelihood that
common
as the
Geiger
Plaintiffs
court record will relate to
MC D Or
J
McShane on
May
14 ruled from the bench on the motion
argument NOMs stay application did not include a copy
required by Supreme Court Rule

hereto
below 2 and
two cases
respectively
couples
advocacy organization dedicated
pursues an appeal from the denial
court proceedings
Judge Michael
the conclusion
annexed
for
only parties with standing to appeal that decision
properly denied
no 6 13 cv 01834
District
not
will
court consolidated
district
defendants
and
they
Oregons
motions
This Court should deny that request for multiple reasons
intervention
The
marry The
judgment while
motion
to
marriage rights
opposing
courts
the district court granted Plaintiffs
as Appendix
23
Accordingly
a copy
of
of
the transcript of the
to
intervene at
that ruling as
May 14
hearing
is
four
members
of this
NOMs motion
Court
to intervene
will
grant certiorari to review that procedural ruling
was
correctly
deemed untimely and
this threshold
finding reviewed for abuse of discretion will almost certainly be affirmed
appeal therefore presents no substantial question
Second
NOM
the merits even
its
if
this case derived
a county
description
marriage provision
who works
in
weddings
a county
an
licenses
provider
clerk
citizen
to Oregons
unspecified
at
of
Oregon members
who
constitution
NOM
NOMs
judgment on
alleged interests in
identified only
it
nearly ten years
role in the private sector
13
courts
by general
voted in favor of adding the discriminatory
Significantly
clerk in his or her personal capacity
government
district
motion to intervene were granted
Application
12 20 23 Thus
for this Courts consideration
would lack standing to appeal the
from the interests
NOMs
NOM
only
ago and an
providing
services
acknowledges
App
does not speak for the clerk as
an
that
A Tr May
official
individual
for
it
represents
14 2014
at
of local
but merely as an individual with personal opinions about marriage
issued by the office where he or she
and Oregon
works
Similarly the wedding service
voter have opinions about marriage equality in Oregon
would have preferred that the
district courts order not take
effect
But
and
preferring
that a judicial decision not take effect does not constitute suffering legally
cognizable
harm
Third NOMs
moved
application
in the district court
is
procedurally
and Ninth
deficient as
Circuit for the relief
Court
it
it
never properly
now
requests of this
The
circumstances
ever grant certiorari
and
of this case
thus render the Court extremely unlikely to
the equities weigh heavily against issuance
of
a stay
ARGUMENT
A
Circuit Justice evaluating
whether four Justices would vote
equities,
and
to give
case in this Court.
Heckler
Redbud
an
application
to grant certiorari to balance
some consideration
Deaver
Hospital
United States 483
Dist 473
1980 As
detailed herein
the
to
determine
socalled
as to predicting the final outcome
U S 1308
chambers and Gregory Portland Independent

1342 1342
for stay is required
NOMs
U S 1301
1302
1311 1312 1985
Sch
Dist
1987
stay
of the
quoting
US
United States 448
stay application
J in
Rehnquist
falls far short of
meeting this standard
NOMs
Application
Reasonable Likelihood This Court
Will
Overturn the
Is
No
District
Courts Rulings
NOM
courts
district
cannot show
May 14
it
is
reasonably likely to succeed
2014 decision denying
its
motion to intervene
interests warranting intervention
Further there
Court would overturn the merits decision in
lack standing to appeal that decision even
NOMs
In that decision the
court explained in detail its reasons for rejecting the belated intervention
attempt which included not only untimeliness but also
this
in appealing the district
if
merits arguments fail in any event
it
is
no
NOMs
failure to
reasonable
Plaintiffs
show
likelihood
favor since
NOM
that
would
were permitted to intervene and
NOMs Motion
to Intervene
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
intervention
putative
of the
under two
intervenor
action and
different
Was Untimely
24 allows
standards
Intervention
by timely motion claims an
is so situated
when
Advancement
24
consider
that its effort to enter the case
of Colored People
In exercising its discretion
whether the intervention
the original parties rights.
circumstances
NAACP
413
Cir 1984
of the
with
US
the putative
is
intervenor
of
law
413
at
365 66
will
timely Natl Assn
U S 345
365
for
1973 Fed
motion Fed
Civ
Civ
P
must
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication
to be
is
which the
see also
intervenor
as to permissive intervention the court
Timeliness
the point to
a prospective
suit
determined from
of
all the
has progressed being one factor
United States
v Oregon
745
F2d 550
552
9th
applying three prong timeliness test for intervention that assesses stage
proceeding prejudice
The two
2013
v New York
is
intervention of right available only on timely
b3
a practical
R Civ P 24b1 B
Fed
must demonstrate
24 a
subject
with the main action a common question
For both mandatory and permissive intervention
may as
the
R Civ P 24 a 2 Intervention
Fed
sound discretion
has a claim or defense that shares
or fact.
interest relating to
ability to protect its interest unless existing
parties adequately represent that interest.
courts
mandatory when a
is
that disposing of the action
matter impair or impede the movants
permissible in the district
mandatory or permissive
for either
to other parties
cases consolidated
respectively
Geiger et al
and
delays
reason
here were filed in October
Compl October 15
4
2013
and length
2013 and December
D Ct Dkt
No
Rummell
received
et
media attention
significant
consolidation of the cases
and
Jan 22 2014
at
setting of
16 16 17 23 18 1 19 6
Rosenblum in her
official capacity
constitutional
oppose
same sex
couples
2014
Ct Dkt
No
in February
knew
it
NOM
moved
58
January 2014
summary judgment
motions on April
briefing
Tr
23 2014
Ellen
justification existed for Oregons
NOM
or should have
to intervene
dispositive hearing
filings
from marriage and that the defendants would not
summary judgment motions was

scheduled
courts
Both
Complaint that the State Defendants agreed
on
to
and
D Ct Dkt
all of these facts
21
April
Answer
less
to
28
Compl
press release that day
position
known
complete
Mot
State Def. s
issued
condemning Attorney General Rosenblums
Even though
11
In February defendant
the relief Plaintiffs sought in this case
Feb 20
No
as Attorney General of Oregon stated explicitly in
with
valid
schedule for
Plaintiffs
no
district
dispositive
her Answer to the Rummell
Plaintiffs that
Ct Dkt
as did the
which was to conclude with a hearing on
exclusion of
al Compl December 19 2013
after briefing
No 106 7 Ex
and
on
circumstances
Plaintiffs
than two days before the
Intervene April 21 2014
D Ct Dkt
No
86
The
district
May 14 2014
D Ct Dkt
File
at
court held that
49 2
NOMs
motion
Although denial
EF
of
to intervene
was untimely
mandatory intervention
is
g Christian Gaston Two
Nos 106 3 106 5 6 Exs C

see also e
Ban on Gay Marriage Oregonian
Suit Against Oregons
http www oregonlive com portland
Dec 19 2013
Tr
subject
to de
More Couples
available at
index ssf2013 12two more couples file suit aga html Jeff
Gay Marriage Could Come by Summer after Federal Judge Consolidates Two
Cases Oregonian Jan 22 2014 available at http www oregonlive com mapes index ssf 2014 01
ruling on gay marriageinoreg html
Mapes
Ruling on
novo review a
NAACP
discretion
1503
1978
district
413
U S at 366
9th Cir 1996 Alaniz
NOM
United States
the facts the district
In deeming
NOM
The
court
NOMs motion untimely

filed its intervention
district
court
F2d 657
moved
11 04 p
by a deadline
of April
scheduled
and
2014
did
NOM
gave no advance notice to the
had
an
discretion
21 2014
April
April 23 hearing on
In other words
cases
at
While three other
NOM
suit
its
nearly three months after that hearing
briefs expressing their perspectives
not
Tr May 14
April 21 motion to intervene
which the
abused
9th Cir
that the parties said they expected would
Tr May 14
seek party intervenor
NOMs
658 59
m PDT on
47 25 48
schedule set in January allowed the filing
amicus
F3d 1499
to intervene less than two days before the dispositive
had been scheduled

The
86
of
court noted the following
the district
had on January 22
hearing in this litigation
abuse
marshaled
resolve all issues in these two consolidated
NOM
for
Washington
district court
motion at
reviewed
is
Lewis Foods 572
Tillie
has no credible argument that the
particularly given
finding of untimeliness
courts
progressed,
2014
at
Tr
status
permitting
amicus curiae
citizen
on
groups did
briefs
file
issues in this litigation
47 23 24 and 48 24 25
district court of its
May 14 2014
was thus untimely
and
of
NOM
relative
at
intention to
48 24 49
to the point to
to intervene would have
delayed adjudication
24
of the original parties
b 3 NAACP 413 U S
NOM
subsequent
to
involved
representing
trial
and judgment
court decision
Application
394
1977
interests of the
unnamed
class representatives
interests. Yniguez
class
because
Arizona
as
it
31 33
at
was granted
pre judgment
These cases do not help
reliance
an adverse ruling Tocher
plaintiffs
allowing
432
by
the
named
were changing course and not appealing
she promptly moved to intervene to protect those
F2d 727
state defendants
McDonald
longer be protected
735 36
9th Cir 1991
could intervene to defend initiatives
on
became clear to the respondent that the
City of Santa
post judgment intervention
against municipal officials where
representations
Ana
219
F 3d
by towing company
company
intervention because the district courts
primary business interests and because
ha d
proponent
district court
1040 1045
9th Cir 2000
in litigation originally
a good reason for its late
its
only became apparent after the district
court issued its final judgment that the City
based
that they would appeal
preliminaryinjunction did not affect
it
of
on
constitutionality
appeal where proponent had elected not to seek intervention in
on reasonable
NOM
to stop adequately
See United Airlines Inc
members would no
Arizona 939
ballot initiative
R Civ
intervenors interests in contrast to the Defendants
s soon
denial of class certification
render its
changing course so as
party unexpectedly
the prospective
Fed
365 66
consistent position in the present case
U S 385
rights See
argues that several cases in which intervention
intervention efforts timely
Each
at
constitutional
had
failed to adequately represent
company]
Serv Inc
interests abrogated
536
U S 424
Cir 2005 Here by

Defendants
The
2002
by City of
and
Tillison
v Ours Garage
Columbus
City of
contrast there has never been
San Diego 406
any doubt about
Wrecker
F3d 1126
9th
the
position
district
court also considered
the length
NOMs
delay in moving to intervene
NOMs
claim that the lateness of its intervention
only recently
defendants
became aware
See Oregon 745
would not be defending
In October
purported
reasons for
F2d at 552
Responding
motion was excusable because
that Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum
the constitutionality of Oregons
the district court further noted the following
and
2013
and
to
it
the other
marriage bans
facts
Attorney General Rosenblum submitted
an amicus
curiae brief in another case in which she took the position that the
United States Constitution bars exclusion
marriage
On
Tr
February
announced
May 14 2014
20 2014
at
of
same sex
Attorney General Rosenblum publicly
would not seek
constitutionality of Oregons marriage bans based
47 1
from
46 21 25 4
that the state of Oregon
understanding
couples
of applicable legal precedent
Tr
to
defend the
on her
May 14 2014
at
4 See Brief of Massachusetts

California Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Illinois Iowa
Maine Maryland New Hampshire New Mexico New York Oregon Vermont and Washington as
Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants p 2 Sevcik v Sandoval No 12 17668 9th Cir Dkt 24 Oct
25 2013
NOM
demonstrated
its
development by issuing
constitutional
motions
14 2014
May 14 2014
was
violate the
known
See also
was
NOM
filed responses
F3d 1297
14 2014
calling
for
early
in which they argued
that
Tr
should be granted
this case so far in
it
1304
was
9th
May
at
4710 13 As early
of
tried to
prospective
Cir 1997
advance
NAACP
7 1972
a critical
413
by public
21
March
should have
motion
that
citing prospective
of litigation
since its filing
months
was untimely 6
as January
25 2014
and attorney general
to
counsel
for
proposed
uphold their oath of office
Oregon.
excuse its late effort to intervene by alleging that
Emergency Motion
for
Ninth
Circuit
it
believed
during
positions were planning
Stay at
of
stage because
intervenor
unlikely to oppose
had been aware
the Oregon governor
reached
April that other Oregon entities with similar political
intervene in this litigation
to the
U S Constitution and that
and had
admission that
has previously
March and
attempt renders that attempt untimely See
for
and defend the Constitution

6
that admitted having been aware of litigation since
Wilson 131
Tr May
intervenor
47 8
18 2014
much about
so
before as the key reason motion to intervene
at
summary judgment
been aware that government defendant
intervenors
shamefully abandoning her
summary judgment
over three months old
had moved
LULAC v
on March
in February that
rejecting as untimely motion to intervene filed April
the suit
plaintiffs
for
or should have
interest organization
when
public statement
of this
47 14 22
at
its belated intervention
U S at 367
for
marriage bans
Plaintiffs
knew
own
this litigation
motions
Oregons
NOM
Tr
duty
Defendants in
Plaintiffs
That
its
Attorney General Rosenblum of
accused
awareness and understanding
2 3 NOM
cites
no
to
time required to
this case
and
court found
and
the
United States
Blaine
upholding denial
ed
district
has submitted no credible reason
of its organization
had
protectable interests in the outcome of this litigation until as they
Tr
stated in their brief only days ago.
fail
NOM
proposed intervenor
The
late filing
its
determine whether any Oregon member
and
contentions that the
Oregon members with alleged interests in
interview
prepare intervention papers warranted
that
for failing to
significant
identify
NOMs
but rejected
Finally the district court considered
May 14 2014
F Appx
County Montana 37
at
48 18 21
276 278 9th Cir 2002
both permissive and mandatory intervention
of
to offer sufficient
explanation
see also
for their delay in filing
where movants
motion to
their
intervene.
For the
until
April
time in
first
known
Application
earlier that the State
now says
at
At a
minimumthough
advice
on how
of
to structure
outcome
7
efforts
of this litigation
The April 8 email that
says nothing about
D Ct Dkt
not going to defend
88
by others
Indeed
Upon
Oregons
If
to
toll
NOM
now contends
D Ct Dkt
18
did not learn
a grant
NOM
in fact
Ct Dkt
the
brief that they
of
should have
No
stage
through
its
of
alerted
110 1 Ex
NOM
admits that
learning
in
to
it
It
64
the proceedings
it
the States
NOM
began
10
truly
on
its
assessment pending
had a serious stake in the
own
intention
behalf
not to appeal in fact
no more information than
recruiting
March 2014 that the
court
p 34 7
members
gave
were eager to
offered the district
should have pursued timely intervention
NOM
that
already had on March
March
it
order
its
authority allowing prospective intervenors

possible intervention
it
Defendants were unlikely to appeal The State
Defendants indicated in their March 18 Response
implement a grant
that
position that they would not appeal
of the Defendants
summary judgment
NOM
this Application
defendants
I began
NOM
participants for this case in

in this
case were
trying to identify someone in
NOM
timely and
Defendants
NOM
bore the burden of demonstrating
it
failed
to
do so particularly given the evidence that
cause waited
cases that allowing
NOM
NOM
outcome
has no
failed to
realistic
U S 517
v
Fine Arts
531
1971
significant protectable interest
under some law and
protected
interest
Oregon who might be
and
and able
on
of prevailing
May 14
its
appeal
decision
of the
also correctly
significantly protectable interest in the
2014
at
49 10 13
Donaldson
U S 310
315 16 1985
An
an
there is a relationship between
to
action
if
it
asserts
an
in
United
claims.
Donnelly
applicant has
its legally
v Glickman 159
intervene to defend Oregons
interest that is
the plaintiffs
willing
superseded by statute on other grounds as noted in
United States 469
protected
of the
Protectable
Significantly
chance
demonstrate a
Tr May 14
of this litigation
States 400
Tiffany
had
Because
Case
denial of intervention because the district court in its
held that
intervene
to
of
so long to voice its purported interest in these
NOM
moved
it
court properly denied intervention
Interest in This
Additionally
before
was
was aware
it
would have adversely affected the rights
intervention
original litigants the district
months
position in this litigation
without good
that its attempt to intervene
F3d 405
marriage law in this
litigation.
8
NOM
factual
also takes issue with the district

allegations
Application
court expressly acknowledged

factual
allegations
the district
filing
courts
See
Tr
its
of
33
based on the facts as
courts
May 14 2014
NOM
point and its holding that
NOM
presented
legal
of
the
May
do so and did
at
13 21 24 451852 18
to offer
them
at
33
credit all of
district
arguments lacked
discretion
11
NOMs
NOM
district
nonconclusory
has mischaracterized
a credible legal justification for its late
as findings that
The
credence to its
14 hearing shows that the
to
failed
Application
NOMs
alleged failure to give sufficient
The transcript
obligation
observations that
themselves were not credible

this
at
NOMs
court
factual
correctly
credibility
allegations
applied the law on
was by no means an abuse
409
9th Cir 1998 quoting Northwest Forest Resource Council
825 837 9th Cir 1996

OConnor
see also
J concurring
In rejecting
NOMs
Diamond
claim that
it
possessed
standing
NOM
as
from any form
their
organization
of inquiry
NOM
organization
has asserted
NOM
a
an
asserted
had
on
in
See
this litigation
conclusory
marriage
Intervene at
9 10 D
of three
to
licenses
Ct Dkt No
That concession
Plaintiffs requested
official
capacity
insufficient to
2014
at
members
none
of
49 10 13
interest
of the interests
as
it
basis for intervention
members
same sex
is
87
NOM
is
fatal
a county
a judgment
couples
job duties
Memo
has conceded
represents the clerk in his or her personal capacity
12 20 23
members whose
significant protectable
requested relief might result in that clerks
of
even in
thus shielding those members
Tr May 14
manner a
claimed that one of its Oregon
the issuance
interest
refused to identify
of the individual
significant protectable interest in the case because
Plaintiffs
F3d
1986
NOM
sought to rely
based on the perspectives
qualifies as
75
by the court or the parties as to the nature and extent
purported interests in
Although
an
proceeding any
or in camera
sealed filing
U S 54
82
discussing nature of significantly protectable interests
in this litigation the district court noted that
Charles 476
v Glickman
only
Since the declaratory
clerk
possesses
granting the
coming
to include
Supporting
however
Tr
who
that
Mot
it
May 14 2014
and injunctive
at
relief
in this case would affect local government officials in their
rather than in their personal capacity
demonstrate that
its unidentified clerk
12
NOMs
allegations were
member had a
significant
to
protectable interest in the outcome that could be delegated
organizational
requiring prospective
interest
and
Id
standing
at
50 10 11
show
intervenor to
claims As
the plaintiffs
to issuing
marriage
generalized hypothetical
While
table
NOM
Application
licenses
before this
local
to
grievance.
Donnelly 159
member had
same sex
Tr
at
33
this
to intervene
F3d at 409
its
legally protected
noted NOMs
couples represented
May 14 2014
at
interest as a
matter
of
clerk
has no greater
no more than
50 10 11
seat at the litigation
Court need not delve into the question
whether a
of
Oregon law because no
in his or her official capacity
Court NOMs
through
a personal religious or moral
broadly asserts that clerks are entitled to a
county clerk has a protectable
has sought
NOM
the district court rightly
claims that its unidentified county clerk
objection
see also
to
and no such
interest in this case
government employee with a personal preference
clerk
clerk seeks
stay
than any other
against facilitating the
licensing of certain marriages
NOM
also contended
that one of its
members
measure that amended the Oregon Constitution
marriage
But
for
same sex
as the district
a general
be meaningless
and
not
Tr May 14
if
Memo
court concluded
interest
intervention.
couples
Supporting
Mot
to Intervene at
11 12
the voters interest in the outcome of a case
at
who
on
to include a prohibition
2014
every citizen
voted for the 2004 ballot
49 23 50
voted for
intervention
ballot proposition
authority to intervene as of right in all challenges
13
The
interest that
would allow
is
for
standard would
retained perpetual
to the resulting
law
See
generally Hollingsworth
standing of
133
Ct
We
to
decline
members
Lastly
some
NOM
some
unidentified capacity
Memo
Supporting
rejected this argument
Mot
services
first
of their
345 46
for the
at
services
weddings
10 11 The
6th
Cir 2007
was
2014
at
commitment and or
weddings and
for
of
same sex
district court rightly
difficult
exact job function
and
50 13 16 As
many samesex
court further observed in the past decade
celebrations in Oregon
time here.
not entitled to defend the
that the claim
Tr May 14
to marriage equality
when
Oregon members work in the private
of its
the absence of specifics about such individuals
objections
state statute
through the democratic process
to Intervene
as well noting
F3d 323
487
related to providing
have a personal objection to providing
couples
v Cox
validly enacted
alleged that
of
to do so for the first
of the general public are generally
a law
constitutionality of
sector in
have never before upheld the
private party to defend the constitutionality
state officials have chosen not
noting that
We
at 2668
to assess
in
particular
the district
couples have hosted
their legal
marriage in another
jurisdiction Because Oregon law already prohibits discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation by retail businesses the alleged potential
describes already exists for anyone
provides
NOM
wedding related
itself
services
has contended that
forced by Oregons
its
who
in
Oregon
wedding
marriages or cease providing
wedding
operates
service provider
services,
14
NOM
business open to the public that
Tr May 14
law to
moral dilemma
facilitate
2014
at
50 17 51
members would be
same sex
thus acknowledging
couples
that this
an
represents
objection to Oregons
long standing nondiscrimination law and not to
the marriage laws at issue in this case
Stay at
See Emergency Motion
NOMs
of
three arguments that its
and
protectable interests in this case thus fails
likelihood
The
District
rejected
it
court also proceeded
reviewed
Baltimore
1037 1044
to reject
for
observed that
abuse
NOM
NOM
is
argument that
its
Oregon public
for
The
argument
for permissive
to the lower courts
for
the district
intervention
sound discretion and
Brotherhood
of discretion
of
R R Trainmen
524 25 1947 McDonald v Means
district
court appropriately declined
request for permissive intervention
Washington
that its approximately
number
was
intervention
its
F3d
300
to exercise its
NOMs
representative
it
is subject
9th Cir 2002
In reviewing
and found
NOMs
O R Co 331 U S 519
discretion to afford
therefore has no reasonable
Intervention
NOMs argument
Permissive intervention
is
NOM
significant
Court Correctly Rejected NOMs Arguments
Discretionary
After
members have
in its appeal of the denial of mandatory
of success
that
Ninth Circuit
19
Each
denial
for
of
D Cbased
political
the district court
lobbying organization,
100 members in Oregon do not constitute
Oregonians with regard to the strength
NOMs
of
participation in the case would give voice to the views of the
Tr May 14
2014
at
5115 22 The
declining to exercise discretion to allow
purports to speak for the people of Oregon
district court further
NOM
to intervene
without being in
15
any way
noted
because
NOM
accountable
to
as
the people of Oregon
51 23 25
for
instance
Perry in which this Court rejected a similar
and thus
private interest organization
to intervene
elected branch of government
simply because
legal interpretation
at
English
52 3
of state officials
see also
Arizona 520
not defending
at
posture
52 7
U S 43 44
to
1997
expressing
district
for the
Tr May 14
Arizonans
for Official
grave doubts about
defend state law provisions state attorney general was
in abeyance
by NOMs
to allow this cases timeliness
Tr May 14
intervention
court thus demonstrated careful analysis of
extent of the intervenors
significantly
in the suit
and
interest,
contribute
to the just
presented, Perry 630
2014
and
district
intervention
equitable adjudication
F3d at 905
NOM
and
the nature
to full development of the underlying factual issues
of the legal questions
having determined that NOMs intervention
Tr
May 14 2014
court acted well within its discretion in denying
and
as well as whether the proposed intervenors
would serve to prolong or unduly delay the litigation
The
disagrees with the
as defendants in a case
S Ct 2666 67
by
substitute
effectively
the organization
Finally the district court declined
to be held
effort
The
would
named
Hollingsworth 133
advocacy groups standing
and
at
In rejecting the permissive intervention request the district court also
cited Hollingsworth
2014
are Id
the elected State Defendants
cannot show any likelihood
NOM
of success
on
at
now
contends
its
appeal
that the district court should have permitted its
16
permissive
denial
NOM
52 7
of this
intervention because interposing
marriage bans was necessary to
of Oregons
Application
applicable
who sought
party
at
31
law
This
both the
distorts
The Defendants
solidify the
this case resembles
The
controversy
and
decision
courts
jurisdiction.
and the
marriage
in this case continued enforcing Oregons
to defend
marriage
of
was genuine and
purported concerns
when
133
to
same sex
In that sense
S Ct at
at the time of the district
justiciable
about
licenses
the bans constitutionality
Windsor and the cases cited in Windsor
the well settled rules as to
lower
facts of the present case
bans by refusing to issue or sanction the issuance
couples even as they declined
to defend
2684
87
courts
do not warrant departure from
justiciability
intervention is appropriate
This Court Is Not Likely to Overturn the District Courts Merits
Ruling Because
Additionally even
NOM
NOM
if
Lacks Standing
were permitted
to
Appeal
to
intervene that victory would be
quixotic at best given the present posture of the case
If
became a
it
defendantintervenor
NOM
down
Oregons
chance
would lack standing
to appeal
the district
marriage laws as unconstitutional
that this Court would ever review
much
There
less
is
courts decision
striking
accordingly no realistic
overturn the
district courts
rulings on the merits
Article III
appeal
standing
Diamond
judgment
476
for reasons
There as here a
is
US
this
not always necessary to intervene but is necessary to
at
lacks standing to appeal
Court explained in Hollingsworth 133
State declined
the ballot initiatives
68 69 NOM
to defend
its
an
adverse
S Ct at
marriage exclusion law
2260
68
Unlike here
proponents intervened in a timely fashion to mount a defense
17
Id A
federal district court struck
attempted
the intervenors
standing to do
To have
so
standing
Their only
appeal
We
had no
and
having the
and
held that they had no
seek relief for
of
an
He must
injury
possess
Here however
outcome
District
validity
of their
appeal
Court order reversed was to

generally applicable
law
have repeatedly held that such a
claiming only
application
directly
large
does
generalized grievance,
standing
is insufficient to confer
to his
and
and
an
internal citations
litigant
every citizens interest in proper
and laws and
tangibly benefits
not state
no
about government
generally available grievance
harm
of the Constitution
more
2662 63
must
individual way.
direct stake in the
interest in
raising only
at
a litigant
a personal
matter how sincere
Id
to appeal
the State declined
in the outcome of the case
vindicate the constitutional

California
law
an appeal Id This Court
to bring
to
him in
direct stake
petitioners
the
reasoning as follows
that affects
down
Article III
him than
seeking
relief that
no
does the public at
it
case or controversy.
omitted The Court concluded
We
have never
before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of
state statute
first
when
time here.
The
Id
at
instant case
argues that
its
county clerk
is
Tr
it
does
distinguishing fact
not however
May 14 2014
NOM
materially indistinguishable
is
claim to represent the interests of a
at
We
decline
to
do so
for the
2668
represent the interests of
clerk
to
50 3
It is
private citizen
not As
who
from Hollingsworth
member who
discussed
goes to
work
is
above
NOM
an Oregon
NOM
every day as
may
a county
represent a county clerk in his or her official capacity
also attempts to distinguish this case from Hollingsworth by arguing
that the decision
by the Oregon Attorney General not to defend the
18
same sex
marriage ban even in the
supplies
NOM
although continuing
district court
with standing that
it
an
has no
organization
reason to find standing.
2013
1154
terms
case
It
The
USA
if
NOM
allowed to intervene
when even
Ninth Circuit review
133
is
not a
S Ct 1138
could not appeal the result in
would make no sense to grant a stay pending appeal
intervention motion
assumption that
sue no one would have standing
This
omitted
citations
Accordingly even
this
standing to
Clapper
it somehow
would otherwise lack under Article III
Court recently rejected a similar claim in unequivocal
if
to enforce
if
on
successful
motion
that
from
of the merits or certiorari
could only intervene in the district court proceeding
this
NOM
of
NOMs
could not obtain
Court At most NOM
which
has already been
resolved
NOM
Cannot
Merits
NOM
devotes
If
Application
because the
This Court Were
much
This Court
district
of its stay application
and
denial of
to attacks on the substance
the
NOM
are largely irrelevant to
of the
NOMs
hear a merits appeal in this case
NOMs motion
in any event
on
Review the Judgment
is very unlikely to ever
courts
certainly be affirmed
to
Likelihood of Success
and order These arguments
courts opinion
district
Show a Reasonable
to intervene
will
almost
lacks standing to bring
merits
appeal
But even
if
NOM
could overcome the
above and secure this Courts review
NOM
numerous
procedural hurdles described
of the underlying constitutional
cannot demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood
19
questions
that this Court would overturn
the district courts
deeming Oregons exclusion
decision
of
same sex
from
couples
marriage to violate the Equal Protection Clause
argued in their motions
Plaintiffs
optimal
environment
in this case because
it
for healthy
is
for
summary judgment
was
childrearing
elsewhere are already raising children together
marriage serves only to disadvantage
irrelevant to the issues at stake
many samesex
undisputed that
that the ideal or
couples in Oregon as
Excluding
their children
it
samesex
has no impact on how
other children might be raised by their married biological parents
those
establishing
will
reduce incentives
Plaintiffs strongly
disagree
on parenting by
research
application
much
for
with
same sex
NOMs
same sex
to
characterization
couples the
same sex
provides
no
couples to marry in
marry Accordingly
while
of the social science
research
NOM
which has been thoroughly discredited 9
of
by
couples
NOM
system in 2008
contention that allowing
for its
that Oregon
childrearing by
facilitate
its registered domestic partnership
support whatsoever
Oregon
and
to acknowledge
and
many
In response to
the State Defendants further noted
public policy supports families of all configurations
had chosen
couples from
is
in its
cites
immaterial to the
issues in this case
NOM
and the
trial
and
allied
See e
testimony
excluding
nom
of sociologist
same sex
Snyder 973
Dr Mark
assertions similar to these in a number of prior cases

every time
F Supp
affd
nom
sub
Regnerus and
Perry
Perry 133
Brown
it
has been subjected
2d 757 765 68 770 72

related
couples from marriage Perry
Hollingsworth
Blankenhorn
made
they cite has been rejected
g DeBoer
ND Cal 2010
sub
advocacy groups have
research
671
S Ct 2652
arguments regarding
Schwarzenegger 704
F3d
1052
U S 2013
to
E D Mich
the scrutiny of a
2014
F Supp
for
2d 921 945 947
9th Cir 2012 vacated

rejecting
discrediting
justifications
and remanded
testimony of David
president of the Institute for American Values regarding marriage fatherhood
family structure
as unreliable In re Adoption of
Doe 2008
20
WL
5006172 at
17 Fla Cir
and
Ct Nov 25
NOMs argument
prerogative to exclude
that Windsor mandates total deference
same sex
hold that federalism would
controversies
couples from marriage also fails
trump all
other constitutional
States prerogative to set their
own
As
Windsor did not
in subsequent
concerns
public policy
law structures by no means authorizes infringement
liberties
to states
and
establish family
of constitutionally protected
this Court has just observed The States are laboratories
may not
experimentation but those experiments
Hall
Constitution protects.
Florida
for
deny the basic dignity the
No 12 10882
2014
WL
2178332
at
16
May 27 2014
NOM
overturning
has no basis
the merits decision
somehow were
that
below even
noted
While
above
Oregons
were granted intervention and
this
mean
The
Issues That
Attorney General has chosen not to appeal the
Court
it
may well
soon
revisiting the standing
previous research
NOM
may
has no legal right to supplant it
elect to take
surrounding marriage equality granting
rejecting
in
Seeks To Litigate
disagree with that decision but
primarily
it
likely to succeed
This Case Does Not Appropriately Present
court judgment invalidating Oregons
district
2008
if
would be
it
able to establish standing to appeal
NOM
As
for contending
up
constitutional
questions
certiorari in the present case
and
justiciability
presented in Lofton supporting
questions
categorical
would
on which
ban
of
this
homosexual
Howard v Child Welfare Agency Review Bd No 1999 9881 2004 WL

3154530 Ark Cir Ct Dec 29 2004 affd sub nom Dept of Human Servs
Child Welfare Agency
Review Bd v Howard 367 Ark 55 238 S
3d 1 2006 discrediting clinical psychologist Dr
couples from adoption
George Rekers and

structure
related
arguments that a homosexual household
that is not in the best interest of children
21
provides inferior family
Court
set clear
standards
just last year in
cases challenging
same sex
and or
couples
recognition of
present
officials subsequently
better vehicle
Nor
at stake 11
judgment
equality
years
cases that
laws that prohibit marriage
same sex
appealed
than this one
in the absence of
there
is
Meanwhile dozens
couples
10
for
at least eleven cases have resulted
Clearly
who
party to this case
which state
case in that posture would
for ultimate resolution
any
of
marriages are currently
finding such laws unconstitutional
in federal district court decisions
local
state
Of these
pending in courts around the nation
and or
of
Hollingsworth
of the
important issues
seeks to overturn the
basis for staying this case pending resolution of other marriage
may or may
Accord Landis
not
come
before this Court in future
N Am Co 299 U S 248
ordinarily a litigant should not
stating that
be compelled to stand aside while a
See Notice of Appeal
Notice of Appeal Bostic
DeBoer
in
litigant
ED
MD
ND
v
No 13 482
Notice of Appeal Latta
11
Snyder
Rainey
Latta
No 12 10285
No 13 395 E D Va
or
Mich Mar 21 2014 Dkt No 153

Feb 25 2014 Dkt No 144 Defs. Notice of
Appeal Tanco v Haslam No 13 1159
Tenn Mar 18 2014 Dkt No 74 Def Sally Howe
Smiths Notice of Appeal Bishop v United States ex rel Holder No 04 848
Okla Jan 16
2014 Dkt No 274 Notice of Appeal to the Seventh Cir Baskin v Bogan No 14 00355 2014 WL
1568884 S
Ind May 8 2014 Dkt No 66 Notice of Appeal Obergefell v Wymyslo No 13 501
S Ohio Jan 16 2013 Dkt No 68 Notice of Appeal Kitchen v Herbert No 13 217
Utah
Dec 20 2013 Dkt No 91 Notice of Appeal by Def Intervening Def Steven L Beshear In His
Official Capacity as Gov of Ky Bourke v Beshear No 13 750
D Ky Mar 18 2014 Dkt No
68 Notice of Appeal Henry v Himes No 14 129 S Ohio May 9 2014 Dkt No 33 State Defs.
Notice of Appeal De Leon v Perry No 13 982
Tex Feb 27 2014 Dkt No 74 Gov Otters
10
1936
255
months
Otter
NOMs
Otter
No 13 482
D Idaho
Idaho May 14 2014

May 14 2014 Dkt No 104
in
F3d
859
8th Cir 2006
is
which a party with standing
NOM
409
also
decision
1972
raises
Application
has been substantially
U S 699
the constitutional
at
15
Notice
myriad
certiorari
issues addressed
certiorari
As the Second
diminished by
F3d
in
at best an argument for granting
argues that the present case warrants
U S 810
Baker
Dkt No 103
other grounds for claiming this Court will or should grant certiorari also fail
assertion of a conflict with the Eighth Circuits
455
WD
because
it
of
Appeal
Their
Bruning
in some subsequent
in
case
Bruning
conflicts
with Baker
Nelson
Circuit has noted the precedential value of
doctrinal
developments in equal protection
169 178 79 2d Cir 2012 including this Courts decision in Windsor

itself
See Hicks v Miranda 422
S 332 344 1972 describing impact of doctrinal developments
on precedential value of a summary affirmance
law Windsor
22
another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of
For
all these
reasons
NOM
cannot show that
this
both
Court
reasonably likely
is
to grant certiorari in the present case
The
II
A
its
Equities Weigh Heavily Against Issuance of a
appeal and because
this
Court
is
is unlikely to succeed
stay equities
weigh in
its favor
whether
can show none
it
there is
of the public interest in the situation
Winter
is
NOM
claims
it
has suffered
result of the denial of intervention
case do not outweigh the clear
and
harm
of irreparable
greater and the nature
is
suffering
entry of judgment
to Plaintiffs of
former marriage bans Even
if
and or
Inc
555
resuming enforcement
NOM
heavily as the
harms
previously suffered by the Plaintiffs as
the injunctive
relief already
NOM
Holder 556
it
and
the additional
its
members do
harms
result of Oregons
associated
granted in this case several
not weigh as
weeks
with suspending
after it
Will Not Suffer Irreparable Injury Absent a
To demonstrate
demonstrate that
predicts to itself
laws and
that the equities weigh in its favor
will be irreparably
U S 418
434
2009 NOM
of
they are generously viewed as likely to
harms
exclusionary marriage
will suffer as a
for the Plaintiffs in this
the
come true
NOMs
2008
The harms
Oregons
the merits of
of the traditional
likelihood
whether the harm a stay would cause other parties
U S 7 20
on
unlikely to grant review of this case
stay should also be denied because
requested
harm
NOM
stay should not issue because
Stay
harmed
Stay
a stay applicant
in the absence
of
a stay
cannot meet this standard
23
took effect
must
See
Nken
NOMs
give rise to cognizable
members
favor
irreparable
harm
This is by definition
harm
to demonstrate
See supra
is
that three of its
district
Purported
specific
irreparable
Harm
Monday May 19
for Plaintiffs
to
and
Plaintiffs
NOMs emergency
holding that Oregons
protection
The
district
a motion
of injury
U S 531
cannot show that
542
it
likely to suffer
stay motion on the
for stay
and must
1987
will
for
see also
suffer irreparable
24
Many
their marriages
must balance
Amoco Prod
harm
couples
on each party
Winter 555
an
the afternoon of
and celebrated
the effect
relief.
marriage laws
same sex
pending appeal courts
consider
summary
court then entered
bans Thus on
Oregon began allowing marriage
granting or withholding of the requested
Gambell 480
its
Far Outweighs Any
exclusionary
couples immediately applied for marriage licenses
competing claims
is
the district court issued its opinion granting
right to equal
In evaluating
it
warrant
failed
NOM
order enjoining enforcement of the marriage
Monday May 19
harms
NOM
19 decision remains in effect
After the Ninth Circuit rejected
violated Plaintiffs
specific individualized
court correctly determined that
The Harm a Stay Would Cause
of
pp 11 15
unable to show
May
Judge McShanes
NOM
contends
significant protectable interest in this case so as to
NOM
intervention
judgment
NOM
generalized interest not
For the same reasons the
morning
At base
do not
are unhappy that this case proceeded to a judgment in the Plaintiffs
irreparable
if
members
interests in this case based on its Oregon
derivative
Co v
U S at 20
without
the
of the
Vill
of
Here while
a stay
Plaintiffs
samesex
have shown that Oregons marriage exclusions caused
couples
and
their families serious
In support of their motions for
and
irreparable
same sex
ways
that
to marry in Oregon caused
them
not only dignitary
harms
In particular Oregon
Plaintiffs built
harm but
many
and
couples
able to travel out of Oregon
of the federal benefits associated
survivor
benefits even
if
sometimes denied private
employees
Motion
for
See
the district courts
until
sector
D Ct Dkt
arguments in
Kitzhaber slip
op
at
23
No
33 Rummell
to deprive
granting
government interest the laws
S Ct at
2694
Plaintiffs
them
Id
at
violate the
appeal
that Oregons
district
court credited these
for Plaintiffs
any
Geiger
legitimate
Equal Protection Clause.
full
see also
legal recognition
same sex
of the denial of its
25
due
marriage laws discriminate on the
observing that lack of
NOMs
in Support of
rational relationship to
parents marriages demeans the children of
marriage ban pending
contended
1643 The
Oregons
Memorandum
Plaintiffs
summary judgment
Because
basis of sexual orientation without
Windsor 133
to access
benefits such as health insurance for the spouses of
protection rights
its opinion
marry were unable
if
with marriage such as Social Security
Summary Judgment 13 16
and equal
with marriage
they did marry in another jurisdiction and were
marriage bans thus operated
process
to
factual
and
also practical
decision could only access stateadministered benefits associated
they were willing
exclusion from the freedom
couples
same sex
as well as other
harm
summary judgment
record detailing numerous
tangible
them
couples
of their
Reinstating
the
motion to intervene would
same sex
again subject
not yet married to these
Oregon
couples in
some
NOM
harms12
Stays
Have Been Issued
puts great weight on this Courts decision
S Ct
Kitchen 134
Jan
893
2014
but to no avail
state officials in Kitchen were engaged in
Utahs ban on marriage
for
same sex
The same is
courts injunction
more defendants has appealed
couples
no
contrast
NOM
implementation
proceedings
was
One day
of the ruling
The marriage
after it
licenses
injunction
after
to
denied
NOMs
NOMs
contention
associated
to
2014
courts
WL
6 16
2048343
merits decision
show any
where the
realistic
the fact that marriage has

widespread confusion
13
of those
cases one or
on the merits13
Here
in
the ruling so no stay serving
during the resolution
Otter
No 14 35420
same sex
of appellate
district
Cir an
May 19 2014
See Evans
granting
is
likely to
incur
same sex
courts
same sex
administrative
couples since
merits decision
Utah
financial
Application
samesex
continuation
See note 10 supra
26
in
of
costs
at
37
in
Nonetheless
May 19
and the
Oregon law would cause contribute
Oregon
its
be overturned and the
couples in Oregon since
and frustration that a second reversal
stayed
overturned ignores both
the judgment were subsequently reopened
available to
the public interest in marriage equalitys
will
No
couples performed
and
May 19
is later
that the merits decision

if
appeal
preliminary
Kitchen v Herbert and before that decision was
in
possibility
now been
D Utah
20
9th
couples in the days since the district
otherwise valid marriages of
scenario
issued to
certificates
continued validity of past marriages even
to
In each
motion in this case the same three judge
with the marriages entered into by
hypothetical
inability
and
require Utah to recognize
the district
in which district
are valid regardless of ensuing legal developments
merits decision
2 14 CV 55 DAK
cites
the district
or is warranted
panel granted a motion to stay in Latta
courts
stay in Herbert
appealed
decision
courts
party with standing to do so has appealed
to interrupt
Unlike here the defendant
and had
true in other cases
the district
ordering
vigorous defense of the constitutionality
courts or circuit courts granted stays pending appeal
12
who have
of the Plaintiffs
This Case Differs Significantly from Other Recent Cases in
Which
of
including
from a
district
courts
Kitchen the State
down
order striking
is prosecuting
an appeal As
recognize the instant case is different
Here
ban
marriage
Idahos
In Latta as in
the Ninth Circuit seemed to
the subject
of the
appeal
is
denial of
motion to intervene not a merits decision and no appeal with a potential to
the judgment
is
forthcoming
Supreme Court Rule

circumstances
requested
was
an
first
or judges thereof.
failure to
23 3
application
e xcept
in the most extraordinary
for a stay will not be entertained
unless the relief
sought in the appropriate court or courts below or from a judge
NOMs
application
never sought from the
and judgment
should additionally be denied because
at the
motion to intervene
intervention
and on
May
NOM
court hearing
district
then
the morning of

proceedings
14
May
district court a stay of its
granting Plaintiffs the relief they requested
stay of proceedings
of its
filed
May
NOM
notice
19
of
NOM
19 opinion order
sought a
verbally
moments
after the denial of
appeal regarding the denial
before
of
the district court decided the
unsuccessfully sought
an emergency
stay of
in this case pending resolution of its interlocutory appeal on the
question of intervention
requested
provides that
comply with this rule
NOM
was
alter
NOMs Application Is Procedurally Deficient As It Never Properly

Moved Below for the Relief It Now Requests of This Court
III
its
In its emergency
in the alternative
not ripe because
no
motion
stay of the district
district court
for
courts
stay of proceedings
judgment
but this request
judgment yet existed
After the district court issued its opinion order
27
NOM
and judgment on
the
May 19
afternoon of
its intent
to appeal
NOM
on
May
filed
the merits decision
notice of appeal did not request
Accordingly although
decision
22
protective
stay of the decisions
NOM
notice of appeal indicating
just before issuance
However NOMs
effect
of the district
courts merits
in this case tried unsuccessfully to obtain a stay of proceedings
the district court or the Ninth Circuit
stay the effect of the district courts
released
precluded
Nor has
its
NOM
May 19
never properly asked either court
order
and judgment
for the particular relief
should not be entertained
28
it
to
after they were
identified extraordinary circumstances that
asking the courts below
this stay application
NOM
from either
would have
now seeks
pursuant to Rule
23
Thus
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons
stay of the judgment pending
its
this Court should
intervention
NOMs
deny
application for a
appeal
Respectfully submitted
Steven
Shapiro
Counsel of Record
D Esseks
A Saxe
James
Rose
American
Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
New York NY
10004
2125492611
sshapiroacluorg
Amanda
American
Goad
Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
1313 West 8th Street

Los Angeles
Thomas
CA
90017
Johnson
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie
NW
1120
Portland
LLP
Couch Street 10th Floor
OR 972094128
Jennifer Middleton
Johnson Johnson
Schaller
PC
Eugene Oregon 97401

Cooperating attorneys on behalf of the
ACLU
Kevin Diaz
ACLU
PO
Box 40585
Portland
OR
97240
Attorneys for PlaintiffsRespondents

Basic Rights Education Fund
29
Lea Ann Easton

Dorsay
SW
Easton
LLP
Portland
OR
97204
503.790.9060

Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison Street
OR
97205
503.227.1928
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Respondents
Nelson
Dated June
2 2014
30
Duehmig and
Griesar
Geiger
APPENDIX A
on Motion
May 14 2014
to Intervene
1
THE
2
3
DEANNA

DISTRICT OF OREGON
HON MICHAEL
McSHANE JUDGE PRESIDING
GEIGER and JANINE

DUEHMIG and WILLIAM
NELSON ROBERT
4
GRIESAR
Plaintiffs
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
6 13 cv 01834 MC
No
6 13 cv 02256 TC
JOHN KITZHABER in his official

capacity as Governor of Oregon
ELLEN ROSENBLUM in her official
capacity as Attorney General of
Oregon JENNIFER WOODWARD in her
official
capacity as State
Authority and RANDY WALDRUFF in
his official
capacity as Multnomah
County Assessor
13
Defendants
14

WEST
LISA CHICKADONZ
and CHRISTINE
15
No
FUND
16
Plaintiffs
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

official
capacity as State
his official
County Assessor
24
Defendants
25
REPORTER'S
TRANSCRIPT
EUGENE
WEDNESDAY
OF PROCEEDINGS
OREGON
MAY
14
PAGES 1
4
5
2014
55
COURT REPORTER
Kristi
Anderson
Official Federal Reporter
United States Courthouse
405 East Eighth Avenue
Eugene Oregon 97401
541 431 4112
6
7
8
Kristi Anderson orduscourts gov

9
OF COUNSEL
10
APPEARANCES
11
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS DEANNA

ROBERT DUEHMIG AND WILLIAM
12
13
14
15
GEIGER
GRIESAR
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
503 227 1928
Fax 503 334 2340
Email lake law works com
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lea Ann Easton

Dorsay
Easton LLP
1 SW Columbia Street
Suite 440
Portland OR 97258
503 790 9060
Fax 503 790 9068
Email leaston dorsayindianlaw com
JANINE
NELSON
FOR THE CONSOLIDATED

PLAINTIFFS BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION FUND
PAUL RUMMELL BENJAMIN WEST LISA CHICKADONZ
AND CHRISTINE
TANNER
Jennifer
Middleton
Schaller
975 Oak Street
Suite 1050
Eugene OR 97401
541 683 2506
Fax 541 484 0882
Email jmiddleton jjlslaw com
Johnson Johnson
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Kevin Diaz
American Civil Liberties Union
Box 40585
Portland OR 97240
503 227 6928
Email kdiaz aclu ororg
PO
ACLU
AD
Misha
Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
1120 NW Couch Street
10th Floor
503 727 2086
Fax 503 346 2086
Email MIsaak perkinscoie com

15
16
17
18
19
Thomas
Johnson
Perkins Coie LLP
10th Floor
503 727 2176
Fax 503 727 2222
Email TRJohnson perkinscoie com
20
21
22
23
24
25
FOR THE DEFENDANTS

JENNIFER WOODWARD
JOHN KITZHABER
Anna
Joyce
Oregon Department
1162 Court Street
Salem OR 97301
503 378 4402
of Justice
NE
Email anna joyce doj state orus
ELLEN
ROSENBLUM AND
1
2
3
4
5
Sheila
Potter
Special Litigation Unit
1515 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 410
Portland OR 97201
971 673 1880
Fax 971 673 5000
Email sheila potter doj state orus
6
FOR THE
Katharine von Ter Stegge

By phone
Office of the Multnomah County Attorney
501 SE Hawthorne Blvd Suite 500
Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138
Fax 503 988 3377
Email katevts multco us
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
DEFENDANT
RANDY
WALDRUFF
Madkour
Jenny
Office of the Multnomah County
501 SE Hawthorne Boulevard
Suite 500
Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138
Fax 503 988 3377
Email jenny
Attorney
mmadkour multco us
16
17
FOR OREGON
18
Leonard
Feldman
By phone
Stoel Rives LLP
Seattle
600 University Street
Suite 3600
Seattle WA 98101
206 624 0900
Fax 206 386 7500
Email ljfeldmanstoel com
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED
FOR MARRIAGE
AMICUS
BRIEF
FOR THE PROPOSED INTERVENOR

FOR MARRIAGE
INC
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DEFENDANT
NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION
John
Eastman
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
o Chapman University Fowler School of Law
One University Drive
Orange CA 90807
877 855 3330
Fax 714 844 4817
Email jeastmanchapman edu
K
SW
Roger
Harris
Harris Berne Christensen
5000
Meadows Road
Suite 400
Lake Oswego OR 97035
503 968 1475
Fax 503 968 2003
LLP
Email roger hbclawyers com

11
GENERAL
12
INDEX
13
Argument by
Mr
Eastman
Pages
14
Argument by
Mr
Johnson
Pages
15 32
15
Argument by
Ms
Potter
Pages
21
16
Ruling
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 41
22 36
35
38
40
PROCEEDINGS
WEDNESDAY
COURT
THE
Thank
Ms Pew
THE
District
CLERK
of Oregon
McShane
al
versus
like
United
is now
Good
States
COURT
12
So I thought
All
right
time sometimes
group
who
MR
go ahead
Geiger et
maybe each
is going to represent
themselves
everyone
It
takes
more
with
the plaintiffs
if
you'd
your introductions
JOHNSON
20
Rummell plaintiffs
21
behalf
Your
and I
Honor Tom Johnson for the
will
also be speaking today on
of the Geiger plaintiffs
22
THE
COURT
23
MR
JOHNSON
25
Michael
than the hearing itself
So let's
my
for the
you
for each
I guess we can introduce
19
24
Thank
begin by having
their interests today introduce
to make
13 01834
could
14
like
Court
we
of the attorneys
18
District
oral argument
13
17
case
in session the Honorable
al
Kitzhaber et
THE
16
our
to call
is the time set for Case
11
15
morning
presiding
Now
9
10
you everyone
you'd
2014
remain seated
Please
if
14
MAY
our clients
All
right
We have
again
The only person
We
who
Thank
you
I won't
did that
last
introduce
time
is not here today is
all
of
Mr
Rummell who is on a business trip
you Mr Johnson
THE
COURT
Okay
All
right
For the defense
MS
POTTER
Oregon
Justice
Department
county
Sheila Potter for the Department

excuse
me
I am sorry
be arguing on behalf
the Oregon
of the state
and the
defendants
THE
COURT
All
10
All
right
For the proposed
11
MR
JOHNSON
me Roger
right
with
Harris on behalf
13
COURT
14
THE
15
So I have
to do is recite
All
intervenors
John Eastman
of the intervenors
right
read the
you
Thank
McShane
Judge
12
16
of
of Justice
I will
Thank
Thank
and
National
you Mr Eastman
briefs and what I don't want
the briefs into the
record
I would like to keep the discussion focused
17
18
law and try to keep
19
briefs to a minimum
20
strong
21
legal issues we need
views
some of the hyperbolic

I know
each
statements
in the
side has very different
of the motion to intervene
but there
are some
to resolve
So I am going to pose some questions
22
on the
23
probably going to pose more questions to
24
the burden
25
intervene
Mr
am
Eastman
because
is on the National Organization for Marriage to

But I
will
ask then
the other parties if
they
have
particular
So
2
3
Mr
Roberts fairly
He
Eastman I will
states
We
have
standing of a private
constitutionality
officials
for the first
have
10
any law or cases
chosen
time
11
court has in fact
12
the Executive
13
MR
15
specifically
16
not representing
THE
19
briefing
20
statements
21
overlapping
22
to and it
to
We
Chief Justice
be
is still
defend
25
injury is different
state
to do so
is there
the federal
party to stand
in for
law
good
Well Your Honor I think that
to intervene
But
if
is
about
on behalf
They
of the
particularized
you continue
were
state
injuries
to say in your
up with
your
and they are somewhat
they won't
defend
it
somebody has
us
EASTMAN
24
where
decline
or maybe I am mixing it
should
the
the
to where
a private
their separate
is that
upheld
in Hollingsworth
can cite
in the newspaper
MR
23
that
COURT
that
not
what Hollingsworth
seeking
before
party to defend
statement
you
EASTMAN
mischaracterizes
18
says
here
allowed
Branch
14
And
that
never
of a state statute
So after that
17
start with
Eastman
blunt holding in Hollingsworth
Mr
comments on anything that
Well that's right
the statute because
the
party has
than standing in the
But seeking
particularized
shoes of the
to
attorney
general to defend
represent the
state
Hollingsworth
case itself
County
because
have
was
denied
But
have
county
but that
clerk
did not
We have
11
THE
COURT
13
MR
EASTMAN
14
THE
COURT
15
seek
a county
But
county
clerk
clerk
the law
said
the court
to
the Imperial
case that was
to enforce
was not before
10
12
in that
and the deputy
clerk
to
clerk and I think the
at a prior stage when
obligation
county
are not claiming
the county
itself
any independent
The
We
intervention
the county
it
us because
didn't
there
may well
the
intervene
to intervene
seeking
not in any official
capacity
you
don't
Well Your Honor
How
do you distinguish
Karcher
May
issue
on that
MR
16
17
actually
think
18
way
19
authority
20
Supreme
21
attorney
Karcher
EASTMAN
it's
Well Karcher
much
Court had allowed

general wouldn't
The Supreme
23
their continuing
24
but it
25
injury
was
closer to our case and it
to intervene
them
who
goes our
had no
other than the state
to intervene
when
the
defend
Court of the United
intervention
because
They
May involved
May had two legislators
under the state
22
after
they
States
rejected
lost their offices
they had no longer any particularized
had particularized
injury as long as they were
10
in those legislative positions
Here
our county
clerk
continues
to be in that
know would be bound by
position and he or she would
a ruling by this court which the plaintiffs
statewide injunction
permitted
permitted
officers
10
Well
to proceed
11
MR
EASTMAN
12
THE
COURT
only because
capacity
So what I
is an individual in some county
14
clerk
15
have
16
court about
17
seal
somebody
20
because
21
some county
22
objection
23
that
24
25
any attempt
as a
they may have
to
capacity
they lost
know
As soon
standing
about
They
at some
to a
same sex couple
it
A religious
with
declarations
made this statement
clerk
works
in this
a dialogue
at having
to
your clerk
in Oregon who
orders about
protective
who works
19
they were state
are not making an appearance
You simply have
18
were
Well
13
avoided
Roberts
in an official
as they lost that
They
have
been
We
is it
as a
case
declaration that
was
way
under
have
injured
point issue a license in
and they have
personal
a religious
objection
mean
I am not striking the recent
filed
You
this
was your most current declaration

And by the
Karcher and Orechio were
this is Justice
acting
seek to have
issued
COURT
THE
you
know
there was
a motion to
11
strike
I don't think it
more information
moving
this
bit more information
I forget who filed
target
it
lot other than a little
adds a whole
which
Every
leads
me to believe
But I
am not hearing
relationship
relationship in Hollingsworth
between
MR
EASTMAN
12
are
the reason
13
well established
14
those
15
I want to unpack
cases
in NAACP
There
have
or the voters
21
didn't disclose
22
were that
23
NAACP
wanted
Alabama
There
Court in that
who
discrete
to seek contraceptive
disclose
are a whole
line of cases
to
provider
interests
who
the clerk
married customers
services
or that
their members
host of cases
that
so
in Griswold Connecticut
doctors
their confidential
wouldn't
of
issues
or the wedding
we are not disclosing
is is the same reason the
25
clerk
and then those particular
20
24
and a large number
thirdparty standing
18
So the reason
problem we
think is I think
this to kind of get the

is NOM's
The
a number of cases where
been
represent the interests of the
vague
Alabama
17
19
agency
relationship
Well wait a minute
we are being
The first
16
any agency
and their local government
your clerk
11
us a little
capacity
An agency
is a
well who is
I mean Roberts goes on and on about
10
giving
official
bit
your clerk
questions
time somebody
clerk we get another declaration
it
But I am going to allow
from the
specifically
Supreme
say when
you
12
have
confidentiality
might follow
situation that
standing
got problems about
would
lost the harassment
be
as a result of
So that's why we have

the second
piece
of
that though
clerk him or herself have standing
intervening on the clerk's
clearly be standing
And that's the prior round
11
Perry case doesn't
address that
12
moved to intervene
in that
13
that
14
be different
15
order is going to be applied to that
16
comes
we cite
The clerk
by that
injunction
18
bound
19
clearly be standing
member of us with
22
private
capacity
23
clerk's
behalf those claims
25
And I
these concerns
think
in the
a clerk had not
clerk
may well
when
it
the
finally
issues
that
about
of that
standing because
who
I think
is can
was
there would
that you know it
I think
21
being a
think
of the state
So now the question
20
the clerk
But the language
may well have
So as an official
is does the
in Perry
down when a statewide injunction
17
24
because
case
in our brief says
And if
behalf
own
thirdparty
for the
that
done
10
that
that that's exactly the
sets up the opportunity
Now
that
exposing yourself the
is going to be
there
would
clerk by being a
harassment in her
member allow us to raise on the
what we set out in our brief on
I think is very important
For example if
this
a clerk was
13
going
to be forced
after a decision
from here made that
job different
it
the clerk
run for
would
had been
when
to resign
be a personal
I ever know
haven't
county
for someplace
that
even
How
that's
given
had first
could
not do the job

than
us
would
under
I mean I imagine if
like Lake
harm
a personal
even
that
I ever know
duties
How
seal the name of the
we looked
at the census data
County for example and that's
Oregon Lake County is a fairly non populace
not being from
11
county a large one but not much population
12
that
in fact
13
Lake
County and we might be able to at least use that
14
information to
15
harm
16
willing
17
individual
decide you know is this a hypothetical
is a real
to make
harm or are Lake County officials
an accommodation
19
we have
20
that's going to happen
got a phantom
MR
21
22
think
23
pleaded
EASTMAN
the Southwest
facts
we may find
there are almost no gay families registered in
But the way you
18
would
mean you
10
it
what
office that
harm as a result of the official
COURT
THE
because
back
to
have
for this particular
formulated it
to the court
here take my word for everything
him
Well two things
Center says you
have
First of
to take
THE
COURT
25
MR
EASTMAN
Not
conclusory
facts though
Not conclusory
facts but
all
the well
as true in a motion to intervene
24
is
14
THE
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
We could
That's
They
are beyond
we could
submit a declaration
redacted
because
identifying
the problem
I'd
official
13
in an official
MR
COURT
16
means that
17
authorization
18
are going to expend
19
is
20
intervenor
like
a declaration
authorizing the
from the county
clerk
to intervene
Well as we represented
clerk
there doesn't
There
have
know the other
which
to be a specific
does have
county
in our reply
elected
is independently
to be authorization
funds
the
They
purpose
are
not
of the
if
so
they
which
thirdparty
here
THE
COURT
Okay
we have
kind of jumped off of my Hollingsworth
Let me hear
22
parties on
23
question into the issue of the
24
clerk
25
without
submit a declaration from the
I'd
EASTMAN
brief the county
21
county
capacity
15
you
the names and the county
to
who is actually
14
with
exactly identify the
But I could
12
seal
submit something under
clerk which you know is part of
the county
THE
11
I can't
have
inquiry
Well let me propose this then
We could
clerk
with
am faced
Well
10
what I
I will
hear from the
from the other
substantial
parties on
harm to the
that
15
Mr
Johnson do you want to go first
MR
JOHNSON
specifically
THE
COURT
Yes
Let's talk
interests of the clerk
that's
MR
From a review
9
10
brief it
seemed that
person was
about
would
Your
12
was before the
13
What
of standing
going
to stand in the shoes of our
16
going
to
17
office
They
20
21
exercise
it's
of the county
that
member and then we are

capacity
the
county
issue or personal
they are trying to then assert
a personal issue
It's
really kind
through
that
is
of a free
issue
And the office
22
this
capacity
also then adopt their official
that
that
are attempting to say we are
And the kind of personal

interest
but conceded
NOM is attempting to do here is really borrow
15
19
brief NOM's reply
court
two levels
18
Honor
to be the office
14
of that
question
the substantial
of their reply
they had all
have
What
a member of the National
not here in their official

It
11
Yes
JOHNSON
Honor
Your
23
is
24
And so they can't
25
that
doesn't
office
have
of the county
a religion
The office
represent the county
whatever
itself
They
county
is
can't
that
secular
adopt
16
The
in terms
personal interest
about
summary judgment briefing
you are talking
in the Misha Isaak
the
all
in all
actually
you look at that
Honor in front of the court in the
Your
about
there is exactly the evidence
We submitted
declaration
of the
I think
Exhibit 8 or
for the last seven
of the domestic partnerships
that
it's
that
it's
all
of
years six years
have
been
applied for
of the counties
10
were by my reading last night seven or
And there
counties
that
have
for
So it's
11
eight
12
applied
13
person a county official

It's
14
personal issue that
16
under the Smith
17
Ms
18
is that
19
can't
Easton
had a domestic partnership
never
completely
or
this is actually
spoke
about
ever face
this
this
on just the
a free exercise
issue
are a number
21
There
22
legal and in none of
23
any of those states
24
recognized
by any
There the law
at the last hearing
a free exercise
THE
that
case which is the peyote case which
religiously neutral
claim
And we were looking
20
would
speculative
a generally applicable
have
speculative
not
also completely
15
25
if
then which is what you were talking
all
of the
of states
where
where
last
gay marriage is
night
now
not find a single case in
this free exercise right has been
court
COURT
What
you
there
at the research
we could
law
do you mean by
free exercise
17
right
Sorry if
MR
2
3
you
drug
said well
peyote
what
Ms
that
I am not
JOHNSON
a person
there was
test
So in that
and they came

it's
working
up positive
Justice Scalia
11
that
12
get
13
So it's
14
there
I have
opinion
wrote that
to smoke
finding
here
right
the generally
anyone who walks
And they
at the last hearing
there was no free exercise
Here
peyote
on
had a
said Justice Scalia and that was
remember the feedback
10
for the state
my religious right to
And the court
Easton
case in the Smith case
the neutral law would
in the door of this county
has to
know any two people would have to get married
you
neutral
it's
a neutral
law
no religious specific
And then there's also a question in terms of the
15
nature
of the
claim that
there's
we
don't
16
speculative
17
have
18
accommodations
19
that
20
the
21
Honor that in this state marriage is really a state
22
function
23
talk
24
talking about
25
be
any evidence
somebody
forms
that
could
with
Lee
do the stapling
State
And what happened
about the Perry
What
Oregon law
happened
state
Schwarzenegger
that
That
or the filing
case is quite
in that
county
clerk
not be made for this
else could
The
this particular
of
clear Your
and we can
case but we are
here
in Lee
State
was the lawsuit was
18
filed
said okay
clause
Then Measure
Well that's
marriages
issued 3,000
before Measure
And then the Supreme

Measure
the
came
36
That's
said not so fast
We
have
of those marriages came
valid
no
Court of Oregon said was
is the arbiter of marriage in
Oregon
COURT
THE
11
So why did you file
12
Multnomah County
13
when
14
arguments
15
I forget which cases
those are
16
might have
me
17
been
18
in fact
19
been
equivalent
in some of the cases

is why the clerk
to remind
decided
named as a
clerk
clerk especially
read one of the first
now
But there
and I
out of the
am
sorry
are some cases
one of the holdings
has no standing
and should
case
You
that have
is that
not have
party
So why did you do
21
MR
that
of a
against the
should be thrown
on marriage where
the county
might ask
of a
I have
20
22
36 is not a violation
So they are all
the state is the
Court
privileges and immunities
And so all
And what the Supreme
10
came
And Multnomah County
36
JOHNSON
Your
this
Honor I imagined that you
question
23
So we filed
our lawsuit against
the
24
Oregon and the office
of Multnomah County
and the county
25
assessor the office
the
official
capacity
State
of
in order to
19
have
to have
purposes of the order that
county in that office
But we knew
THE
other clerks
COURT
And we knew
10
we knew
11
under Lee
JOHNSON
here
is
that
we would
would
Exactly
at the
but please
holds that
14
that
office
15
it's
tomorrow some other
16
name in the caption
Exactly
don't tell
issued
and
order
Honor
Your
them Your Honor but

to a motion to dismiss
and named
county
him because
and not his
20
we are requesting in the order what
21
disrespect
22
of this lawsuit
23
marriage
to any of the issues that
views
Waldruff
The
it
argument
it's
we have
not
or the relief
his personal views
but we don't
what his personal
when
If
care for purposes of the relief that
germane
COURT
office
that
name
19
THE
assessor and we named
here what his personal
Mr
that
person we would have put their
we are requesting
to
is the person
he holds
18
personal
be
for
time and I realize that the
position who is the
But we don't
24
State
State
13
17
to the same
But importantly Randy Waldruff
12
25
hope
we might be susceptible
of Lee
in front of the court
who are going to be subject
MR
county
in light
Well then why not other counties
of caution
in an abundance
views
that
no
care for purposes

are about
is that
same sex
somebody's
comes to religion can
be a
20
MR
it
harm can't
significant
Honor
JOHNSON
Perry
It
Your
Perry is very
before the last paragraph
having
state
happening
be
but
Hollingsworth
clear
a private
could
said that
we have
in to intervene
or state statute
constitutionality
or Hollingsworth
said the final
As you
party come
not in this context
the sentence
never
recognized
to defend
and that's
the
what's
here
So in terms of those
vows
personal
although
they
10
may be very important
to someone they are not
you can't
11
come
effectively
general
12
and defend
13
happening
14
personal
in as a
as
as the
here
And
they
and that's
are just doing
I want to
I know
based
at the outset
you referenced
16
hyperbole
17
And I
18
this case are acting
19
need
20
NOM's brief there was reference to
21
times
am completely
I wanted
and I
confident
in good
on those
COURT
24
MR
JOHNSON
25
THE
COURT
You
that
the
don't want to dwell

that
all
of the
on
lawyers
that
in
faith Your Honor but I
to address just very quickly
THE
23
it
what's
views
15
22
attorney
the
in
collusion a number of
know I don't want to discuss
that
Okay
I think
it
was a poorly
very
21
choice
poorly
word
discretionary
where people
are accusing
conduct
this court
conversation
it
does make
when
intervention
on
JOHNSON
THE
COURT
10
about in terms of
whether
each
I want to go down
other of unprofessional
has seen
none
So I don't
want
Okay
So I
she wants
want to hear from
to weigh
Ms
Potter
on
in on the issue of the
clerk
MS
11
12
repeat
13
won't
POTTER
I think
Thank
Mr
you
Johnson
Your
Honor
made some good
I won't
points
those
repeat
I think it's
14
important
legal interest
here that
15
substantial
16
unable to carry out his or her official
17
if
18
develop
19
would
20
she
21
carry out part of his or her duties
22
delegate
23
a road
it
MR
this issue if
suggests unprofessionalism and
me question
It
this court
is not that
were to enter an
such that
at some
point down
in which
any of those duties

And I
the clerk
would
duties
It
order then events
find himself in a position

I am sorry
the expressed
the
be
is that
might
line the clerk
or herself in which
he or
he or she does not want to

and does not want to
to someone
don't find any
support
just having
else
in any
case
24
the proposition that
25
to want to do part of your job is a substantial
law for
a personal preference
legal
not
22
interest
such that
it
I think it
would
support
here
an intervention
also really raises some troubling
interests with
respect to transparency
this person can
as an elected
represented and is seeking to hide an act that he is
attempting
people who will
next election
only come
to take
as an official
be called
if
official
upon
county
in appearing
11
or her interests it
12
capacity
13
that
THE
COURT
15
burden so I will
16
comments
Eastman
has
from the
for him or her in the

interest
of this
in this case to argue
for his
in his or her official
a nongovernmental
Okay
MR
EASTMAN
18
hypothetical
Suppose
19
who had a strong
20
there was a case challenging
21
abortion
22
public
23
of
that
Mr
give you the
17
25
this
interest
group
he or she is a member of just personally
14
24
to vote
should be done
and not through
Mr
of this county
there is an official
10
as
if
of this county
in as an official
of this county
official
because
Eastman you have the
kind
of final
reply on these
So I want to give a parallel

we
had a public
moral objection
with
a nurse
to performing abortions
a state statute dealing
said they don't have
hospitals and it
hospital
with
to be performed in the
was challenging
that
as a violation
sought was
every public
unconstitutional
And the relief
employee in that
hospital
would
and
that
be obligated
to perform
23
abortions
these
appearance
organization
The nurse doesn't
on her own behalf

that
opposes
The fact
4
it
that
is affected
part of an
there was a personal
by her public
be directly affected
sufficient to give her standing
standing for the organization
by that
And here's what
an
abortion
that
10
to make
but she is
want
duties
that
but
are going to
I think is
litigation
and hence
of which
interest
the third party
she is
a member
the Oregon Supreme Court
said in
Lee
The
11
12
licenses
13
county
ministerial aspects of issuing marriage

in Oregon
function
And then it
14
15
that
16
licenses
have by statute long been a
the county
clerk
goes on to list
has
The plaintiffs
17
through
the litany of duties
in the issuance
here have
sought a statewide
18
injunction
19
reach to every county
20
performance of those
21
this injunction
if
this court
22
requested
it
will
23
that
24
they ran for that
25
as a result of this court's ruling and the injunction
And
are involved
the named
of marriage
clerk
state defendants
So the county
that
will
clerk in the
duties is clearly going to be bound by

the
relief
they have
implicate interests of hers or his
because
office
grants
the job that

will
that
person
took
when
now be dramatically different

that
24
plaintiffs
have
sought
than it
The standard
2
3
one
particularized
injury that
Hollingsworth
That's
interest
the subject
injury
It's
relating
But
it's
12
they were required
and the nurse would
Here
13
15
office
the marriage that
16
going
17
things
18
suppose but you can file
to a clerk's
not handing
office
20
have
21
an injunction
22
those
23
obligated
24
injunction
EASTMAN
that
that
is
an
transaction if
it
would
It's
COURT
in any
to their
this county
Okay
in an
are two
something I
that
case
the plaintiffs
They
clerk
that
have
clerk
will
in response to such
All
different
county
require every county
duty
of rights
I mean marriage and
Then the relief
to perform that
THE
is
out a certificate
to get paperwork
sought is not relevant
licenses
transaction
I mean they have to file
I don't
MR
the
the transaction is the conferral
It's
19
transaction
to participate
of marriage
It's
or the
in
protectable
be part of that
14
25
a significant
about
action
of this
abortion
Roberts was talking
to the property
11
is a very minimal
not the kind of generalized
In your hypothetical
10
otherwise
been
interest and it's
the Chief Justice
COURT
have
for intervention
a protectable
THE
would
right
In the
sought
to issue
be
an
again I
25
turn to Roberts in the Hollingsworth
to talk
issue and what you are asking the court to do is say
because
with
failure to defend
organization
government
what I
about
think
without
will
And I
Branch's
the law
mean it
11
replace the Executive
12
answer
to
relationship
would
Ms
be me telling
you Ms Rosenblum
Branch with
to no
one
answer
15
no
16
them
17
are not elected
18
all
19
one amicus
20
have
21
period
22
however
23
defend
Rosenblum
I am going to
an agency
that
doesn't
is
they decide
Yet petitioners
for themselves
with
review what arguments to make and how to make

Unlike
California's attorney
general
they
at regular intervals or elected
No provision provides for their removal
at
As
explains the proponents apparently
an unelected
appointment for an unspecified
of time as defenders
and to whatever
of the initiative
extent
they
choose
to
it
And isn't
Branch
to the
you
14
25
case that a private
in this
And what Roberts said
13
disagree
in
stand
who is right next to
that
interpretation of the law and
any agency
10
he continues
really is a separation of powers
there are members of your organization
the Executive
24
case where
he really saying that
should not get involved
the
in who and how
Judicial
the Executive
26
Branch
is going
MR
2
all
due respect
with
discussion
that
had any particularized
initiative
provided
way
on the fact
they
that
whole
12
question where
13
injuries
have
been
16
government
17
nothing since
18
was relatively recently
19
cases
that
in a
was being
had no particularized
in the environmental
COURT
21
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
injury
earlier if
I had any case
to intervene
adequately
particularized
when
or fully
the
defending
Chief Justice Roberts opinion because
THE
23
asked
was not
20
22
objecting
alleged specific
allowed
where people
itself
of defense
they
we now have
15
doing was
think doesn't deal with the
And Your Honor
14
had passed no longer
general
because
discussion
11
were
to the lack
They
the proponent in
injury
by the attorney
10
Honor
Your
Roberts begins that
that
after the initiative
And so all
generalized
The difference
is Chief Justice
by focusing
No
EASTMAN
these decisions
to make
But there
are a whole
context
for example
That's
that
slew of
legislatively created
Well it's
but
That's
where
the separation of powers
24
issues come
in
25
legislature
says citizen lawsuits the consumer protection
There
are tons of cases
where
the
27
But when
2
And I
Judicial Branch
don't
MR
creates
EASTMAN
Oregon bestows
such an interest
Given
clerks
on county
been
very clear
on
that
I think
not create
have
authorized has
is that
14
for others
15
to flow
16
that
17
to at least be able to raise some objection
the particularized
injury for the county

injuries that
here
clerk
state you know
standing to be able to intervene
Honor you mentioned
earlier on the
question of discretion
One of the
20
there's great discretion
is on the timeliness question
21
I do think
22
that
23
case
24
and it
25
unprofessional
the only issue where
as part of the discretionary
the parties are both
all
seeking the same relief
taking
makes
not meant as a claim that
conduct
and
are going
19
was
it
to be
we are saying
in the law in this
gives them enough
And Your
What
particularized
from a change
18
standing if
that
13
that
the law in
The Supreme Court's
permitted
have
the
here
12
who
if
the law does create
injury
grounds
So what the statutes
11
don't know
them
to create
of particularized
did not meet constitutional
is I
the duties
And the statutes could
lawsuits
citizen
does the Judicial Branch create
has the authority
10
the law
I mean the question
law
the environmental
judgment
But
the fact
the same side of the
this by definition
there's
but by definition
any
collusion is
28
when
you take
admitting things that

THE
3
4
collusion
the same side of the case and you are
COURT
Don't
let's
collusion because
chose
have
on a legal
gotten
topic
THE
COURT
12
MR
EASTMAN
13
THE
COURT
word
15
bad choice
of
MR
words
You
the parties
to agree
point Your Honor
should have
a different
chosen
The middle point

You
factual
18
the
19
adversarial in the
law
It
EASTMAN
17
should have
a middle
suggested
When
you have
point
It
was a
unprofessionalism
somebody
a problem with
a different
chosen
makes a concession
claims or on legal claims that
on
are not warranted
both parties
in
not being
case
20
THE
COURT
21
MR
EASTMAN
22
THE
COURT
25
suggest that
There's a middle
I don't want to hear about
16
24
would
You
word
14
23
honor Mr Eastman
have
it
10
11
of
I mean that's the import of that word
EASTMAN
on
it
not the definition
together not that they just happened
MR
8
9
That's
Okay
All
That
right
was
And
the argument
that
Thomas
made
in his dissent
MR
was whether
EASTMAN
they had
Well but again the issue there

the California Supreme
Court had
29
said they have
of the
whether
are
entirely different
state
standing because
Right
They
they represent the
did not
The particularized
on the
injury line of cases
is
cases
agency
case
Hollingsworth
is an agency
they did make
the claim in their
what Chief Justice
Roberts was
that
11
Chief Justice
12
generalized
13
reasons why we have
14
was
one
the backers
EASTMAN
18
claim
19
it's
20
hypothetical
21
African American
22
change
23
district wide
And I think
They
three different
injury
didn't
The county
a vote
clerk
well
as
any different
make
than
case
dilution
again maybe
here is
but let me make
in a
claimed
here is a
in the Hollingsworth
background
Let's suppose
a city
in Alabama
an
majority temporary majority decides to
their electoral
system from an
a citywide
The city
somebody
got
is the voter
They
the
they didn't
are important
the argument
my law professor
24
we have
of the initiative
MR
17
How
about
you are claiming
the others
COURT
make
in
brief but that was not
particularized
but I think
THE
15
I think
didn't
injury that
Roberts said all
injury
They
talking
they had a particularized
10
25
on
And what Chief Justice Roberts is talking about
16
the point
injury which is what we
making
make
interests
attorney
at wide
to a district
doesn't
like
election
that
move
system
And so
sues alleging that the effort to make that change
30
in the law was designed for the explicit
benefiting
concedes
then sets up a summary judgment motion that
negates
a particular
that
And the city
That
of that
would
African American
a vote dilution claim even though
generalized
10
who voted
There's nothing
in favor
Hollingsworth
12
dilution
13
generalized
14
vote
15
the front end from casting
16
back
end by conduct
17
have
those
throws
out that
But because
have
it
in
entire history of vote
is
in that
of the
sense
right to
away either by blocking you on
taken
that
Court's decision
of the importance
it
or negating
effectively
its
effect
it
negates
on the
that
you
claims
And that's why I
think
19
particularized
20
way back
21
Every one of those involved
22
particularized
one in the
23
particularized
in standing
24
routinely recognized
25
thing could
their interests are
But every one of them
and not have
18
of that
in the Supreme
11
cases
completely
extent
to that
that
That
case and every
negation
attorney
election
citywide
be a vote
of
complaint
point in the answer to the
the effect
race
purpose
injury as recognized
to Reynolds
THE
the voters
COURT
here have
from those cases
Sims on those vote

a generalized
dilution
and yet the Supreme
Okay
in those
Ms
all
the
cases
injury not a
way we normally talk
standing
about
Court has
cases
Potter do you want to
31
respond
to
that
MS
Just on
votes
their votes
It's
Honor
Your
counted
enforced
People
Measure
who
voted
were diluted
and the hypothetical
what happened
here
The other thing
is that
12
is relevant
13
articulating
14
voters
15
analysis of the law and articulating
16
she determined was the correct
17
and Oregon
of this lawsuit
is an injury that
general
he believes
engaging
What
that
he is
were done
to the
legal position that
one on the basis of federal
not the subject
to be this
of this lawsuit
injury appears
20
and the attorney
21
on the legal question that
22
There
23
lawsuit which is a question of whether
24
civil
25
is
in an independent
the
19
isn't
to
law
That's
18
is not the injury that
to the subject
by the attorney
any of their votes
the injury that
Mr
is discussing
law
is
is just not comparable
11
Eastman
It
36 had
today
right now
10
you
for Measure
law
36 became
There's no basis to say that
Thank
sense of course the
in the immediate
diluted
weren't
being
Yes
POTTER
general
the fact
reached
is the subject
rights are being violated
COURT
the plaintiffs
the same legal conclusion
an injury to the voters
THE
that
The
of this lawsuit
on the subject
of this
the plaintiffs
by Oregon
law
Hard one to explain to
voters but all
32
right
Mr
2
3
to if
Johnson any comment on that
you don't
MR
have
JOHNSON
would
like to make
the Supreme
say that
the individual views
individual
the court
11
court
12
Diamond
Your
is that
views
add
Honor the only other point I

of trying
that
voters
a person
people
might have
might have
you mentioned
to minimize
in Hollingsworth
was not considering
that
cited
to
in terms
Court's holding
the court
10
anything
You don't need
Perry and
in their
or the
holding
in its
the Karcher
case but the
also in its reasoning and in its opinion cited the
Charles
case
And in that
13
case there was a particular person
was a criminal statute outlawing abortion
14
There
15
number of
OBGYN's
16
to defend
that
17
abortion
somebody
18
that
19
consistent
20
what the court
21
that
22
law because
23
there are fewer
24
So they had both an economic
interest
25
forth and this kind of value
interest
statute
law
came
to challenge
And a conscientious
who had value
Measure
said was
they had a
they
36
that
attempted
and that
an economic
objector
to
people would
to intervene
person
said well I am a pediatrician
that
with
say
And
also indicated
interest consistent
abortions then there will
state declined
interests consistent
similar to the views
with
and the
that
with the
and if
be more patients
they were putting
33
And the court
1
2
come
chooses
not to enforce
want it
enforced
in and represent the
the court's ruling
Perry talked
THE
about
side of the state when
and Justice
case
that
COURT
and said you can't
this law in the way that
And the court
dismissed that
Okay
you would
Roberts in Hollingsworth
That
I'd
the state
case is inherent
ask you
to respond
to this
statement
10
A prime purpose
of justiciability
is to
11
ensure vigorous advocacy
yet the court
12
upon
by state officials
13
preference
litigation
conducted
is to lose the
And granted
14
that
is
insists
whose
case
in Justice Thomas's
does certainly reference what the
dissent
15
but it
16
claiming and that is advocacy
is something that
17
be
and improves decision
18
as opposed
that
improves the system

to hinders
19
What
20
MR
are your thoughts
JOHNSON
think
not going to be too roundabout
22
of a history lesson
So when
intervenors
are
should
making
it
21
23
in
on
I
that
will
but
answer
will
here in terms of this
we came
into this
24
plaintiffs
we were a couple
25
plaintiffs
and we brought
I am
give a little
case
case the Rummell
months behind
our case
that
knowing
the Geiger
that
that
bit
34
there was an answer in the Geiger case already
answer
Mary Williams
attached
the memo from then Deputy
point
when
so we were
we came
it
that
would
I have been on the other side of the
that
be potentially
That
a bit different
That
DOJ
11
asked
12
scheduling
13
date because
14
Hollingsworth
15
okay
16
might be confronted
17
assert certain interests in the way
18
want those
19
the court
that
20
date came
and
Perry
We looked
we are going to have

with
is
into that
time
an amicus
We
a situation here where
a situation where
that
at
said
the court
the state may not
some
people
So let's
date
there be an amicus
looked
at these issues and
interests to be asserted
would
propose
And that
to
amicus
went
But the thought
21
at that
here
the court
order for the court's consideration
record
consolidation
order and we inserted
we did the research
where
And so we knew
that we inserted
in January
for a scheduling
this case
was in the court
10
And then after
that
from other cases
And we had the hearing for the
General
was clear to us at
into this lawsuit
obvious
was
Attorney
Jordan not that Michael Jordan
to Michael
And the
and that
we recognize
was that
yes
22
this
23
terms of the fact
that
24
the same way that
some organizations
25
to be defended
Your
a bit of a different
the state is
but that
doesn't
Honor that
experience
not defending
out
change
in
the law in
there might want it

the law in terms of
35
whether
2
3
or not they have

THE
COURT
MS
POTTER
Okay
Ms
Yes
Your
Potter anything
on that
issue
4
state
has advised
state
has certainly laid out arguments
in other cases
all
defending
those
if
the court
Honor
around
the
wants
country
only
the
to hear the
that
The
the
have
court
their state bans vigorously
assist the court
11
arguments
12
opportunity
13
We
in its
decision
been
made
has available
and responding
also if
the
to
them
court
So the court
wishes
from NOM on the legal questions that
15
as a party but as an amicus
16
with
17
presenting
18
those
19
objection
to the court
20
receive
late filed
21
of the arguments
we analyzed them
were not a basis to uphold
And I
deciding
the
that
that
it
wants
think
it
really gets
between
distinction
24
has suggested
25
And the problem is it
that
are part of
that
advocacy
it
wants
to
has that
briefing
this not
those arguments
the
state is not
and determined
law
it
we don't
would
amicus brief in which
23
attempted
to receive
simply to make
a level of vigor and conviction

because
We have
by laying out those
14
Not
cases the briefings by defendants that are
10
22
here
like
NOM can
that
have an
to
make all
to consider
the court
this gets to the
and being an adversary and NOM

to play an adversarial
is not an adversary
role
to the plaintiffs
36
here nor are its
could
that
members because
order NOM to do would

the plaintiffs
who are in a position
defend
adversarial
brief if
don't
that
any effect
on the
an adversary
isn't
The
The advocacy
the court
have
wants
an objection
THE
COURT
11
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
relief
can
parties
to do something and to
the state law are in the case already
role
this court
seeking
to be ordered
10
12
have
are actually
So legally NOM
nothing
be handled
That's
the
by an amicus
a late filed brief
to accept
We
that
to
Okay
Honor can I address that
Your
point
13
Yes
And I
think Mr Eastman I am
those are really the heart of my questions
14
probably
15
if
16
respond
17
to consider
a general
you want to make
statement if
So
you want to
and anything else outside of your briefs you want me
MR
18
now would
EASTMAN
You
19
said repeatedly
20
law
21
necessary adversarialness
22
Justice Kennedy's
23
are only enforcing
24
least two
25
Canada and are seeking
and
that
be the time to convince
me
know on this both parties have
the state
defendants
are enforcing
that under Windsor was enough to create
the
for jurisdiction according
opinion
But that's
not accurate
law
respect
half of the
of the plaintiffs
With
the
to
They
to at
those who were married out in
to have
the marriage recognized
the
37
was
filed the attorney general said
day after the lawsuit
we are not going to enforce
adopted
the
that and they have actually now
regulations in this state not enforcing
that
law
So at least on that
5
6
not a defense
either
adversarialness
opinion
even
that
under
Justice
and Miller
11
Wright
12
case where the parties desire
13
by intervention
14
rights that
The
of a genuine
Kennedy's
we have
of the law
Windsor
easy qualification
the same result
adversary
rights
or voters
may be saved
affected
clerk
who are
dilution claim or
adversely affected
17
wedding
18
regime that
19
20
requested those are rights that might be adversely
21
affected
22
name
23
organization
24
to them intervening
We
who are going to have
they have
to operate
if
it
THE
that
there's
to intervene
COURT
a different
as a result
intervene
of a
themselves
have
on their own
clear authority
on their behalf
Okay
legal
issues as the plaintiffs
Any one of them could

believe
under
who represents the
of a county
on a vote
to
is that
16
providers
not only
that according
otherwise might be adversely
So if
15
there is
creates a real problem for
There's an easy way out of
sic
it
part of
of the law but not an enforcement
And I do think
10
25
part of
given
for us as an
the hurdles
38
Anything
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
want me to consider
MR
5
6
your briefs
else outside
No
Your
Anything
from the other
parties you
your briefing
outside
JOHNSON
Honor
Honor could I talk about the
Your
timeliness issue for a moment
COURT
THE
and I
think
I have
notes
of findings
MR
10
You
have
with
that
12
complete discretion
there's
The only thing I
of the district
THE
COURT
14
MR
JOHNSON
16
proceedings
here in my
wanted
is
court
On timeliness one of the factors
there's
the reason
three prongs
for the
The
stage
we
made the
again about
38 hours
point I am not going to make it
19
before the motion for summary judgment was heard
20
that
21
applicable
22
of the proceedings
then the cases

You
23
And I
24
Your Honor have
25
longer
on both sides
know it's
in this
and involved
and all
of
were frankly not
really the question of the stage
case
am sure that
been
of the
delay and the prejudice
18
And
to add is
obviously in the
On the stage of the proceedings
17
Yes
13
for timeliness
new
to the timing
one of the factors in timeliness
15
something
together a list
put
regard
JOHNSON
11
can if
involved
we all
all
in cases
many depositions
that
the lawyers
and
went on for much
and that
kind
of
thing
39
That's
not this
case
But if
the court
what kinds of cases
stage
at all
if
decided
Honor but if
them that
10
could
of the proceedings
of the cases
that
I compare
we would
have
been
in the direction
that
been
this to to determine
urge Your Honor
filed
decided
to look
post Windsor
And
here Your
we are seeking
in less time or around
time as right now here in this
the same
case
So in terms of the stage of the proceedings
11
that
they are
believe
13
in Virginia was
14
The Love
15
decided
in February
16
brought
in December and decided
17
months
brought
late that the Bostic
12
sic
the
cases there are a number of
you look at those
have
see okay well
cases and now I think 13 have been
you look at those

all
were to look to
The
case
Lee
was brought
case
in February
in July and decided
Beshear
Rainey
we
in July and
Orr case in Illinois

in February
was
That's
three
The De Leon
18
THE
COURT
19
MR
JOHNSON
Which
case was
The Lee
brought
21
De Leon
22
decided
in February four months
23
Idaho District
24
ban
25
yesterday
That
Court struck
case was brought

The
am
sorry
was
February three months
20
Perry case in Texas
that
was brought
down
in October
And just yesterday

that
state's
The
and
the
gay marriage
in November and decided
motion for summary judgment in that
case was
40
filed
2
3
18th the same day we filed our motion
on February
THE
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
Timing Mr Eastman if
Okay
you
to
want
The one thing not in our brief on
this point
is the statement
director counsel for the plaintiffs
January
the state's
exhibits attached
25th
I think
defense
by the ACLU's executive
it's
here back on
a little
early to characterize
36
of Measure
This is in one of the
to one of the declarations
10
I think
we will
not
11
the state responds to our own
I think that's true
13
And what happened
then we learned
since
or
were
a clear picture
motions for summary
12
legal arguments
have
until
judgment
that what
rather what was being
14
those
15
abandoned we learned that there was not going to be an
16
appeal
taken
And quite frankly
17
own to intervene
18
its
19
members who had this NAACP
20
themselves
21
diligent in trying to pull that

THE
22
That
until
NOM did not
did not
COURT
standing
it
became clear that
Alabama
happen
Okay
have
All
it
on
had
hurdle to intervening
overnight but we were

together
right
I am going to take
23
a brief recess maybe five minutes and go over my notes
24
think
25
am going to take
I am prepared to issue a ruling on intervention

a
let's
take
five minute recess
So I
41
Recess
1
THE
2
3
notice
filed
COURT
I did want to address a filing
of request for information regarding recusal
I had a little
asked
being
notice
have
on January
hard time understanding
I think there's a misunderstanding
of both the facts
contributed
10
some to misunderstanding
what was
in the
of the facts
back
22nd
be
never
455 a
made a
Section
12
would
a waiver by the parties to the case
13
finding hasn't
You
would
I have
finding under
warrant
it
that
11
for recusal that

A
made
been
know there's quite a
don't think
there's
15
a legal basis for a nonparty or maybe even a party to
16
discovery of a judge
17
my mouth
18
explaining some
on an issue of recusal
up on January
of this to you
notice
20
were raised in the
21
think
22
marriage I have never
23
a public
24
an advocacy
25
group
because
Despite
22nd
attended
I cannot
that
did open
it
some
was
raised
of the issues that
And I want to begin by
I said this on January
statement
but I
22nd so I don't have any problem
So let me kind of clarify
19
was
case and I may
and the law in the
So I want to clarify
14
that
intervenor
by the proposed
the
On the issue of gay
rally
I have
recall having
supports gay
never
donated
made
money to
marriage
being gay and involved
in the
law
the
42
subject
of gay marriage has held little
interest
not read the entirety
the dissent and I had read none
opinion
would
me
to
And I
receive
know
that
What
Until
legal or personal
I was assigned to this
decision
of the Windsor
I had read
of the Hollingsworth
of no personal
is dependent
case I had
or financial
on the outcome
of this
was that
generally
10
that
could
11
are
12
basis upon
Oregon to avoid political

come
me
before
made but inadvertent

which
There
14
marriage and where
15
subject
it
16
Mass in recent
17
to read political
18
to the congregation
19
marriage
probably
years it
comments
same sex
comes up the most where
has become
statements
hearing was a CLE I attended
22
raised it
23
the speakers
24
moved to Eugene
25
was approved
I believe
I didn't know
been
the
I am
times I attend
very common for a priest
from the bishop or archbishop
condemning
21
when
is
be questioned
reasonably
has actually
Another example that
because
which
comments of others are not the
examples on an issue of
to comments it
20
case
discussions on matters
are times when
impartiality can
So to give
13
I think I tried to discuss on January 22nd
I do try my best in a small community
benefit
efforts
I raised
at the
Ms
for credit by the
law
Ms
it's
my clerks
to legalize
at the January 22nd
school
Middleton
Middleton
and I
Oregon
gay
was
one of
I was just
attended
State
And I
the
Bar
CLE
It
It
was
43
sponsored
by the Oregon
Oregon School
School
or University of
Law OGALLA and I believe
of
And generally
of Law
it
was a lecture
Windsor the holding
and the difficulty
face
clients
trying to advise
end
At the very
is I
made me nervous
the very
ballot initiative
end
10
to volunteer
11
because
12
campaign
from an organization
redefining marriage
up
to stay and sign
And I
if
people
15
questions about I was willing to share
and repeatedly with
were aware
the
in favor
of a
spoke asking people
kind
talking about
The other issue that's
And at
and I
left
part of a political
14
16
practitioners
I said what
My clerks
guess those are the
that
that
to be campaigned
we did not want to become
13
on the history of
and this is where
don't like
somebody
ACLU
the
been
of events
that I
am
of and they had
them
addressed
both by the
media is the fact
that
17
notice
18
share characteristics
19
plaintiffs
20
child
21
anyone under
22
Mr
Eastman
23
you
know we are white we are male we are exactly the same
24
age I believe
25
well
in this case in that
It's
I am
with I guess at least the male
true
I am gay
and raising a
I guess we do share characteristics
the age of
35
I think
they
would
say that
and I share more personal characteristics
53
or close
We
have
to
it
worked
I think
our whole
To
So
we are both
life
in the
law
44
both been
advocates
We have
public
issues in an unpopular
defender I know
But the fact
4
5
characteristics
the
years on criminal
cases
of me to
10
both
like
know as a
you
to sometimes
take
that
I have
that
the plaintiffs
gay men appear
share
in front of me all
cases on family law cases
sent people with
prison and I haven't
we have
me
given
of the case changed
if
the posture
13
certainly understand
14
of any possible
a thought
to the fact
irrelevant
I would
Certainly
certainly
duty as a judge to be aware
my ongoing
conflict
So I did want to address that
because
it
was
notice
With
17
on civil
very similar characteristics
in this case it's
12
raised by
the
common characteristics
So to
15
on
sometimes setting
time sometimes with their families throughout
11
16
what it's
me
with
We have
you all
regard to intervention
18
leave
hanging
19
deny intervention
with
my just
20
Federal Rule
21
court in certain circumstances
22
nonparty
23
right or by permission of the
24
proposed
25
requirement under
intervenor
of Civil
litigation
bench
Procedure
am going to
opinion
24 allows
the
to permit intervention
Intervention
court
it
of a
can be of
The burden
to demonstrate that
rule
am not going to
a big surprise
and here is
in ongoing
is on the
meets the
45
The Ninth
1
2
whether
intervention
guided by practical
is appropriate the
court
a four part showing under
make
am going to focus
application
has a significant
property
on the first
Rule
is timely and whether
or the transaction
24
Of the
is
four I
Whether
the proposed
interest
that
by right must
prongs
two
protectable
should be
considerations
and equitable
The parties seeking intervention
10
that in determining
Circuit has held
the
intervenor
relating
the subject
to the
of this
action
Intervention
11
court
24 b
Rule
Nonetheless
is discretionary
12
with
13
the
14
three prong showing that the motion is timely that it
15
an independent
16
or defense
17
law or
18
19
20
21
this
under
court the proposed intervenor
must satisfy a
for federal jurisdiction
grounds
and the main action
its
has
claim
share a common question
of
fact
So the threshold
question
The Geiger plaintiffs
Greisar
and Greisar
Geiger Nelson
Greesar
MR
PERRIGUEY
23
THE
COURT
24
Brought this action

challenging
is timeliness and the
findings
court makes the following
22
25
to allow for consideration
Greisar
Greisar
Greisar
the definition
Duehmig
Thank
you
on October
Sorry
15th 2013
of marriage found
in the Oregon
of
46
Constitution
statutes
The Rummell plaintiffs
2
3
and the Oregon
West
which
include
Rummell
Chickadonz
MR
ISAAK
MR
JOHNSON
THE
COURT
action
identical
Chickadonz
Chickadonz
19th 2013
on December
10
2014
11
would
12
summary judgment
13
for April
At the same
Their challenges
consolidated
the cases
court
The dispositive
22nd
ruling on
motion hearing
was
agree
and I
be
16
hearing on the matter and only hearing
this
the case posture
The plaintiffs
filed
was set
judgment on February
19
plaintiffs
20
summary judgment on March
The Rummell
That
was going to
the dispositive
on the
final
matter
their motions for summary
18th 2014
18
That's
plaintiffs
the Geiger
filed
their motions for
4th 2014
Prior to this case ever being
21
on January
for dispositive
15
17
were
23rd 2014
And that
under
their
time the parties agreed that this matter
be submitted to the
14
and Tanner filed
to the Geiger plaintiffs

The court
Chickadonz
filed Attorney
22
General Rosenblum in an amicus
23
took
24
couples
from marriage is unconstitutional
25
October
of
brief to the Ninth
Circuit
a clear position that quote The exclusion of same sex
2013
This occurred
in
47
On February
20th 2014 having
to the Rummell complaint
answer
announced
Oregon marriage laws based
appellate
publicly that
just filed
Attorney
the state would
their
General Rosenblum
not be defending
the
on their interpretation of recent
decisions
That
same
day
the proposed
intervenor
National
Organization for Marriage announced
Attorney
General Rosenblum
constitutional
10
duty
proposed
intervenor
12
the attorney
13
defend
that quote
is shamefully abandoning
closed
her
quote
As early as January
11
the
25th 2014 counsel for
was calling
general to uphold
for the Oregon governor and

their oath of office
and
the Constitution of Oregon

Defendants
14
Kitzhaber Rosenblum and Woodward
15
filed
their response
16
March
18th 2014
17
the position
18
should
19
Oregon's marriage laws restricting marriage to one man and
20
one woman could
21
constitutional
22
decisions
23
24
25
that
be granted
to summary judgment
In their response
plaintiffs
because
no longer
motions on
the defendants
the defendants
believed
pass scrutiny under
By April
1st 2014
briefs from three citizen

On April
took
this court
that
the federal
appellate
had received
amicus
groups
21st 2014 so just two days prior to our
48
dispositive motion hearing counsel
intervenor conferred
intervention
hearing
At
5
6
with
and delaying
11 04
pm
a motion to intervene
On April
plaintiffs
counsel
the April 23rd
on the
was
for the proposed
evening
summary judgment
21st 2014
of April
filed
22nd 2014 the proposed intervenor
a motion to delay the April 23rd hearing
denied as untimely and argument
10
regarding
That
motion was
was set for today
to take
up the issue of intervention

The proposed
11
intervenor
12
reason for failing
13
intervene
14
dispositive motion hearing
to notify
sooner than the
The proposed
15
16
of the attorney
17
April 23rd hearing
has provided
the court
40 hour
intervenor
general's
The proposed
18
of its
windrow
no credible
intent to
prior to the
had a clear
understanding
position two months prior to the
intervenor
reason for failing
20
its
21
until as they stated in their brief only days ago
22
their own
23
Oregon members
25
organization
to determine
has submitted no credible
19
24
filed
had significant
whether
any Oregon
and protectable
member of
interests
By
admission their membership is only around 100
Proposed
intervenor
chose
not to file
brief raising the issue of intervention
or even
an amicus
a simple
49
notice
So I am finding
2
3
as to their intent
to the court
the motion to intervene
untimely
With
has
intervenor
unidentified
county
intervenor submits have
this
among
worker
its
right the proposed
of
approximately 100 members an
industry an unidentified
in the wedding
clerk and an unidentified
voter
significant
that
the proposed
protectable
interests in
case
10
The court
and the existing parties are unable
the degree
of the members protectable
11
determine
12
because
13
their identities
14
genuine
15
have
16
regarding protective
17
declarations
18
proposed
19
by the parties and by the
20
anything other than conclusory
21
intervenor
22
is
the proposed
intervenor
has
And I understand
issues of concern
that
chosen
there
intervenor
interest
not to disclose
are
the proposed
But rather than hold a dialogue with
under
to
think
intervenor
may
the court
orders or requesting to file
seal or in camera discussions
the
has made the members immune from inquiry

court
One of the proposed

36 in
to ascertain
statements
members is
2004
of the proposed
a voter
for passage of Measure
24
the outcome
of a case is of a general interest
25
significant
protectable
that
who voted
voters interest in
23
interest
The
standing on
would
and not a
allow for
50
intervention
One of proposed
2
3
as a clerk
appearing
particular
in a county
The clerk
capacity
who
works
is not
as a representative
of any
or local government
The proposed
in Oregon
in an official
county
members is an individual
intervenor
has provided
little
information as to what the clerk's
protectable
in this litigation
he or she may be required
to perform a job duty that
other than that
10
religious objection
11
grievance
12
It
to
they might have
no matter how
sincere
a wedding
15
religious objection
16
what service
service
provider
to
does not confer
standing
who
intervenors members works as

also has a general
same sex marriage
It
moral or
is unclear
the member provides
The case here is about
17
or
case
One of the proposed
14
a moral
Such a generalized hypothetical
is not at issue in this
13
interest is
marriage
know
18
Mr
19
but this case is not about
20
married many couples
21
Hawaii they fly off to their hometown or their parents
22
town to take
23
there
24
to get married and yet they come
25
ceremonies here in
Eastman you have tried to clarify
are
over
their formal
who
gets
the years
vows
this in your
to eat
cake
in Oregon
and vice
versa
brief
I have
who
fly
off to
mean
assume same sex couples who go to Washington
Oregon
here to take
their vows and
51
Nothing
about
a ruling I make
that
laws that
consumers based on sexual
is
Nothing about a ruling I
make
is going to change
will
change
forbid businesses from discriminating
orientation
The
the Oregon
against
harm such as it
already exists
Discretionary intervention
The proposed
intervention
marriage
intervenor
discretionary
in order to provide the defense
to Oregon
laws quote that the government itself
10
raising but is
11
of the
12
of government
13
Branch
14
it
day
not
is that
and it
closed
be
the Executive
Washington
17
and I
18
it's
19
lobbying
20
I want to focus
21
approximately a 100 members
22
a representative
am not
I
I
the Executive
the law the
Branch
Executive
then someone has to do
16
fact
if
us
The National
DC
should be
The argument at the end
is unconstitutional
should
15
quote
is not willing to defend
believes
based
political
lobbying
is a
organization
mean I am just stating what I
and
I think
mean obviously the ACLU is a political
organization
well but in terms of intervention
as
on that
number
because
your membership in Oregon
is
I am not finding that that is
of Oregonians
More significantly
23
seeks
24
answerable to the electorate
25
directors
of the National
the Executive
of Oregon
Mr
Branch
is
Eastman
and the
are
not
52
It
be remarkable
would
opinion
following
for a court
the
to substitute
Hollingsworth
Executive
organization
the legal interpretation of Oregon's elected
Branch
of government
simply because
Oregon citizens
going
political
case that
that
disappointed by the lack
12
but I
13
with
a third party
14
It's
hard for me to really get
15
members given
17
the lives of
posture
are not
of a
are probably
of adversarial debate
am not prepared to substitute
it's
And
the posture
So it's
official
intervention
many Oregonians
11
16
disagrees with
group
lobbying
I know
by the
interest
impacts
Its timeliness and its
to be held in abeyance
10
a private
the organization
This is an Oregon
with
the
they
Branch
degree phantoms
a clear idea of these harmed

have
case
an Oregon
the Executive
to some
case
in this
been
It
presented
will
in
remain an Oregon
case
18
The motion to intervene
19
Mr
20
appreciate
21
know
Eastman I do appreciate
your briefing
thank
is denied
You
your arguments
are a smart
guy
and I
you
you
22
All
right
23
MR
EASTMAN
24
THE
COURT
25
MR
EASTMAN
Your
Honor if
may
Yes
because
we need
to request
53
stay
and we'd
This is an immediately appealable

like a stay pending
COURT
THE
Okay
MR
JOHNSON
THE
COURT
MR
JOHNSON
The
appeal
stay will
Your
of your
be
order
denied
Honor may I make one
comment
Yes
in terms
of your factual
findings
I believe that the Geiger plaintiffs
10
brought
12
amended their memo on February
13
motion for summary judgment on February
15
the date that
16
motion
the county
COURT
THE
17
18
correcting
19
quickly
that
18th
March
4th date is
replied to our summary judgment
You
are correct
I was scribbling down
Thank
you for
a lot of notes
Okay
MR
factual
They
18th and we also filed our
I think the March 4th date
14
20
originally
their motion for summary judgment in January
11
21
order as you know
PERRIGUEY
Your
Honor there was one other
issue
Yes
22
THE
COURT
23
MR
PERRIGUEY
24
order from Michael Jordan
25
plaintiffs
You mentioned
The
state
actually
issued the
the day after the Geiger

the
Rummell
plaintiffs
in your
54
Aah
THE
COURT
MR
PERRIGUEY
So that's
modification
THE
COURT
right
that
All
Okay
Anything
All
right
Thank
THE
CLERK
Court is
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank
you
will
allow
correction
just a slight
The
else that
proceedings
14th day of
have
you very
in
mistaken on my
much
recess
were concluded
May 2014
this
dates
55
I hereby
transcript
certify
of the
that
the
foregoing
correct
oral proceedings
above entitled matter to the best of my skill
dated this 15th day of
is a true and
had in the
May 2014
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sKristi L Anderson
Kristi L Anderson Certified
Realtime
Reporter
and ability
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
6 2 2014 9 35 10
Subject
RE
Eek
try
re sending
From
Lea
Ann
Easton
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
I
haven
Lea
Sheila
RE
t
Coie
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie
2014
Tom
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
9 35 AM
Johnson
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
Perkins
Coie
checking
received
it
Ann
From
Potter
Sheila
Sent
Monday
June
To
Tom
Subject
We
Perkins
Thanks
mailto
02
H
Johnson
checking
Will
June
Tom
AM
Johnson
mailto
02
2014
Perkins
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
9 34 AM
Coie
Misha Isaak
Perkins
Coie
Lea
Ann
Easton
got
it
checking
e mailed a service
now
m worried
let
me know
if
that
copy
the
of
our response
e mail didn
you received
it
make
this morning
it
to
any of
and
the
external
but
Mary
didn
recipients
and
Would
you
Thanks
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
6 2 2014 9 37 56
Subject
RE
Attachments
JUSTICE
The
Thomas
Johnson
To
Perkins Coie
Jr
Sheila
Potter
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
AM
checking
5355884 v1 Geiger 1834Response
Def
of
Opp
in
pdf
state s brief
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
com
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
Potter
Subject
perkinscoie
haven
Sheila
LEaston
mailto
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 9 35 AM
June 02
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
RE checking
received
it
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Tom
Subject
We
Sheila
Monday
mailto sheila
June 02
Johnson
doj state or us
potter
2014 9 34 AM
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
Perkins
Lea Ann Easton
Coie
checking

received
it
make
and
got
it
but
it
Mary
now
and
didnt
if
m
you
Thanks
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
the contents conf
that
you have received
idential
this
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
any transaction
or
with
Treasury
Coie LLP to be used

matter addressed
herein
or
Department
Revenue Code
any attachments
and IRS
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
NOTICE
advise
This communication
the sender
contents
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
No
13A1173
In the
Supreme Court
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE INC

on behalf of
Oregon
its
members
Applicant
v
DEANNA
L GEIGER
M NELSON
ROBERT DUEHMIG
WILLIAM GRIESAR PAUL RUMMELL BENJAMIN WEST LISA
CHICKADONZ CHRISTINE TANNER BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION
JANINE
FUND
Respondents
Plaintiffs
and

Oregon JENNIFER
WOODWARD
Governor of Oregon
in her official
capacity
as State
RANDY
WALRUFF
in his official
capacity as
Respondents
Defendants
RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT'S

MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE ANTHONY KENNEDY ASSOCIATE

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Continued
F ROSENBLUM
ELLEN
753239
M JOYCE
ANNA
Solicitor
MARY
013112
General
H WILLIAMS
911241
1162 Court
Street
NE

Telephone
Counsel
503 378 4402

Respondents
for
Defendants
John Kitzhaber Ellen Rosenblum Jennifer
Woodward
JENNY
MADKOUR 982980
KATHERINE VON TER STEGGE
Office of the
501
SE
032300
Hawthorne
Blvd
Suite
500
Portland Oregon 97214
Telephone
Counsel
for
503 988 3138

Respondent
Defendant
Randy Walruff
Counsel of Record
5 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOM's
II
NOM
burden to obtain
Court will grant
from
relief
NOM
reasonable
Court
NOM's
3
reasonable
probability
grant certiorari in this case with respect
will
has failed to establish
that this
Court would grant
discretionary
ruling
legal standard
NOM
has
that this
district
when
reasonable
no
probability
review a
certiorari to
there is
dispute about the
court applied
the district
failed to establish a reasonable
Court would grant
court's
certiorari to
NOM's
denial of
because none of
probability
review the
motion to intervene
NOM's members
had a
significant
NOM
this
has failed to establish
Court
district
III
NOM
will
court's
reasonable
opinion and judgment
has failed to demonstrate
court's
court's
11
prospect
fair
denial of
that this Court
NOM's
motion to
judgment on the merits
NOM
on
challenge to the district
its
probability that
grant certiorari to consider the merits of the
will reverse either the district
probability that this
motion to intervene
NOM
extremely heavy
is
case
that this
to
certiorari in this
Court
this
fair
court's
14
prospect of success
denial of
NOM's
motion to intervene as untimely and as not presenting a

proposed intervenor with a
significant protectable interest in
the litigation
NOM
14
successfully
reversing the district
determination
untimely
that
NOM's
it
has a chance of
court's discretionary
motion to intervene was
15
NOM
successfully
NOM's
three
it
has a chance of
court's denial of
motion to intervene because none of
members
has the necessary
NOM's
interest in the
18
litigation
NOM
on
samesex
marriage even
fair
prospect of success
Oregon's constitutional
if
NOM
ban on
had any basis to intervene
and could establish the necessary Article
III
standing for an
appeal on the merits
IV
NOM
result
22
from
a denial of a stay
Transcript Geiger
27
Kitzhaber
et
al
6 13 CV01834 MC 6 13 CV02256 TC
Appendix
will
26
Conclusion
Appendix
harm
B Motion to Dismiss Geiger v Kitzhaber
14 35427
APP 1
et
al
APP 56
ii
Cases
Alaniz
F2d
572
Foods
Lewis
Tillie
657
U S 837
cert denied 439
Baker
Cir
9th
1978
15
Nelson
409
U S 810
v
Conkright
556
1972
Frommert
U S 1401
2009
Elane Photography LLC

309
Hollingsworth
Maryland
133
3
Willock
P3d 53 N M 2013
S
cert denied 134
133
12
Ct 1787 2014
19
Perry
S Ct 2652
2013
20
v King
Ct 1 2012
v Geren
Munaf
553
U S 674
NAACP v New
413
2008
13
1973
York
U S 345
Outdoor Media Group Inc
Rostker
506
F3d 895
Goldberg
448
U S 1306
133
9th
Cir 1981
Whitewood
10
Windsor
S Ct 2675
F3d
10
2013
23
West Coast Seafood Processors Ass n

643
Beaumont
v Ford
F2d 1142 43
United States
City of
1980
See also United States
650
Cir 2007
9th
701
9th
Res Def Council Inc
Cir 2011
Wolf
No 13 1861
Natural
2014
WL
2058105
24
10
M D Pa May
iii
20 2014
22
Constitutional
and Statutory
Provisions
Or Rev
Stat
106.305
23
Or Rev
Stat
659A 403
18
U S Const
Art
11 19 20 21
III
iv

APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
The
the district
National
order denying
court's
litigation
NOM
litigation
no
before
it
for
NOM's
NOM
motion to intervene in the underlying
and judgment on the merits of
that
1 NOM's primary complaint throughout
this
attempted
matter
has
to intervene in the
disagreement with the position taken by the defendants
its
rational
basis
on which
to defend
the state's
Oregon's Attorney General has been
about the
Marriage Inc
court's order
Application at
case
even months
around
Organization
state's
The
position
state
clear
from
same sex
marriage
centered
that there is
ban
the outset of this litigation
carefully considered
and analyzed
the
possible justifications that have been offered in support of similar bans in other
cases including
all
of the arguments
The Attorney General determined
NOM
that those
seeks to have this Court consider
justifications
would be
inconsistent
with Oregon's legal policies in the area of domestic relations But the Attorney
General did not acquiesce when confronted with the two complaints
case and stand silently
outcome
as
NOM
by
or
has contended
defendants presented
to the district
justifications for the state's
failed in light
collude with
plaintiffs
filed in this
to reach a particular
The Attorney General on
behalf of the state
court a thorough analysis of the potential
samesex
marriage ban and
of Oregon's other valid legal choices
why
to treat
same sex
couples
and
their families
conducted
with respect and dignity under the
a thorough
constitutional
A and
Application Appendix
this case
legal officer reached
is
plaintiffs but because
unusual
not
as
court abused
no
NOM
similar conclusion
NOM
its
state
from enforcing the
NOM
ban
B
on
asserts because Oregon's chief
the merits as that asserted
seeks a stay of a final judgment
standing necessary for any appeal even
district
violate
and enjoined the defendants
Thus
marriage to
court also
district
and found Oregon's
analysis of the claims presented
samesex
ban on
law The
discretion
if
it
when
were to prevail on
in denying
NOM's
its
it
by
the
lacks
claim that the
motion to intervene
And
party with standing to appeal the judgment has any plans to continue this
beyond
matter
the district
court The Oregon defendants
appeal
Governor John Kitzhaber
Jennifer
Woodward
Walruff
contend
state
application
does not
Rosenblum and
defendants joined by County Assessor Randy
court judgment
district
with standing to
and
they oppose
have been
NOM's
satisfy the high standard
fully resolved
motion
for a
stay
by
the
NOM's
it
seeks
NOM's
burden to obtain
Relief in
only in
inchambers
extraordinary
relief
from
this
Court
is
extremely
heavy
stay applications such as this one should be granted
cases and
denial of such applications
is
the
norm
Rostker
Goldberg 448
The burden
is
on
the
U S 1306
moving
1980
1308
Brennan
party to demonstrate
probability that this Court will grant certiorari
2a
Court will then reverse the decision below and
3a
harm will
2012
result
Roberts
from
the denial of a
CJ in chambers
1401 1402 2009
Ginsburg
those requirements
much
II
NOM
has
in
less all of
stay
a reasonable
prospect that the
fair
likelihood that irreparable
Maryland
quoting Conkright
NOM
chambers
J in chambers
King
133
S Ct 1
Frommert 556
cannot
satisfy
US
any of
them
reasonable probability that this
Court will grant certiorari in this case
NOM's
NOM's
arguments
motion
to intervene
judgment as largely the
to meet the necessary
treat the
NOM
motion
for a stay of the order
and the motion
same The two
criteria
denying
for a stay of the district
require distinct analyses
court's final
NOM
and
fails
decision
for a stay of either
reasonable
probability
that this Court will grant certiorari in this case with respect to
NOM's motion
NOM
moved
scheduled hearing on the
district
to intervene
litigation
Dist
it
motions
plaintiffs
NOM's
represented
any
for
court's
summary judgment The
motion was untimely and
that
NOM
significant protectable interest in the
Ct Did No 115 pp 45 49
hearing transcript
attached
as
Appendix
NOM's
Id
at
court denied
52 53
NOM's
NOM
this
NOM's
Court
request to stay the denial of
appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Before
NOM's
request for a stay
NOM
argues that the district
nonconclusory allegations with respect to the timing of
intervene
erred
district
motion to intervene and
Appeals
NOM
The
by
NOM
Application at
determining
that
NOM
33 NOM
failed
discretionary
reviewed
1973
for
abuse of discretion
is
when
the district
court's denial of
Timeliness
would grant
ruling
legal standard
district
NOM's
Footnotes
is
abused
had any
is
significant
unlikely to grant
See
there is
no
dispute about the
court applied
NAACP v New York 413
its
district
court
denial Because those findings are
made
critical
And
sound discretion unless
the court's ruling will not be disturbed
on
is
U S 345 366
to be determined from all the circumstances
omitted The
motion to intervene as untimely
be determined by the court in the exercise of
discretion
that it
that this Court
The
show
court
claims
certiorari to address either of those
NOM
motion to
also argues that the district
Id This Court
to
its
it
is to
that
review
extensive findings in support of
to the question whether this Court
its
would
grant certiorari to review
The
district
15 2013
Dist
on January
Ct Dkt No 115
22 2014
Id
and
court's
filed the state
set
47 The
restricting
same sex
rational
April
man
1 2014
23 Id On
Id
48 On
April
April
it
22
21
at
NOM
to the
the
lawsuits
Oregon Attorney
that the state
would
support the
ban Id
summary judgment
summary
believed that Oregon's
and one
woman
could no longer
three citizen groups had filed
for the previously
11 04 p
filed a
as untimely
on
their materials
taking the position that the motions for
marriage to one
April
two
filed
parties filed
basis that
filed their response
Id By
on October
marriage ban and would instead
and the briefing was concluded
at
for
20 2014
under the federal constitutional
briefs
intervene
February
was no
18 2014
appellate decisions
on
motions
should be granted because the defendants
pass scrutiny
hearing
for
defendants answer and announced
state defendants
marriage laws
amicus
On
filed
court consolidated the
district
schedule
would not support the
motions on March
judgment
discretion the
The Rummell complaint was
23 2014 Id The
order
at
p 45
46 The
at
responses to be argued April
according to the
was
court found that the Geiger complaint
December 19 2013
defendants
court's exercise of its
summarize them in some detail
defendants
General
the district
Id
m NOM
scheduled
filed its
motion to
motion to delay the April 23rd
All of those facts are supported
NOM
the records and
asserts without
factual
for a stay in the
reasons
it
offered for filing
of
to intervene less than
because
case
it
two
was unaware
Ninth Cir Dkt
Contrary to
NOM's
NOM
Application at
justifications
days
full
NOM
when
prior to the
claimed
scheduled
No
14
16
NOM
Motion
assertions that the district
for
33
In
motion
its
about the
it
that filing
would
motion
its
was
hearing
timely
take in the
Emergency Stay
court disregarded
it
simply
failed to credit
detail
of the position the state defendants
allegations the court's analysis demonstrates that
them
more
provided a bit
NOM
that court
motion to intervene
its
NOM's
NOM
true
as
the pleadings in
Court
In this
likely
is
Ninth Circuit
rejection
court's
them
does not dispute any of
allegations
and
the court's docket
discussion that the Ninth Circuit
court's denial of the
NOM's
by
considered
NOM's
them
factual
but found
lacking in credibility in light of the entire record before the court
The
district
exclusion of
court found that the position of the state defendants
samesex
couples
in an amici brief to the Ninth Circuit in a different
Ct Dkt
No
announced
115
p 46
publicly
The
on February 20th
Id
at
was
2014
47
That same
that the state
would
their interpretation
day
set forth
2013
court also found that Attorney General
defending the Oregon marriage laws based on
appellate decisions
case in October
that the
Dist
Rosenblum
not be
of recent
the proposed intervenor
the
National Organization
Rosenblum
is
The
court also noted that
district
that quote Attorney General
Marriage announced
for
duty
shamefully abandoning her constitutional
a s early
25 2014
as January
quote Id
closed
counsel
for
proposed intervenor was calling for the Oregon governor and the attorney
and defend
general to uphold their oath of office
Oregon
the Constitution of
Id
Those findings make
Appeals will overturn the
very unlikely
it
district
that the
discretionary
court's
ruling that
NOM's
motion to intervene was untimely Similarly it would appear even more
unlikely that this Court
where the legal standard
would
grant certiorari to review a discretionary
is not in
NOM
ruling
dispute
that this
district
Court would grant
NOM's motion
court's denial of
because
none
of
NOM's members had a
the
to intervene
significant
The
significant
for the
NOM's
district
court's determination
protectable
district
motion to intervene as untimely
heavy burden of establishing
that this
NOM
interest in the litigation
Ninth Circuit to affirm the
ground or
that
that the
Court would
likely
to establish
any
court's
NOM
failed
order
As
ground
with the denial of
has similarly failed to meet its
Ninth Circuit would reverse on
that
that
issue
NOM
of
its
sought
members
in
to intervene
Oregon
based on claims
an unidentified
worker
unidentified county clerk and an unidentified
49
The
district
court correctly
concluded
general interest and not a significant
Id
intervention
planner's
at
49 50
The
make would
by
the wedding
to providing services to
wedding industry an
Ct Dkt No 115 p
Dist
interest that
to
samesex
the issues in the litigation because
potentially seek out the services
behalf of three
of a
would allow
for
court also concluded that the wedding
if
voter
protectable
same sex
other jurisdictions would seek to celebrate
50 51 Even
in the
on
that the voter's interest is
general moral or religious objection
not be affected
asserted
it
marriage would
any ruling the court would
couples
who could marry
their marriages in
in
Oregon and
may be Id
of this planner whatever they
at
planner had standing to assert his or her objections
same sex
couples
in
some
completely
separate case
dealing with Oregon's anti discrimination provisions and not with the right of
those couples
review those
to
marry it
legal
certiorari in a case
petitioner
is unlikely that this
claims The Court recently denied a similar
In this
certiorari to
petition
for
without any vehicle issues about the standing of the
Elane Photography
denied 134
Court would grant
LLC v
Willock 309
P3d 53
N M 2013
cert
Ct 1787 2014
Court
NOM
county clerk But the
focuses
district
largely
on
the
court found that the
member
whom
it
asserts is a
clerk is not appearing in
an
official
as a representative of any particular
capacity
government
record in
Dist
Ct Dkt No 115 p
that the clerk
remains anonymous
to
or religious objection
found
correctly
performing
his or her
that
his or her
that the individual lacked
is
local
supported by the
Because
he or she
duties the
the clerk presented
might have a moral
district
court
a significant legal interest in the
Id
litigation
Contrary to
Court
grievance
That finding
unknown
the circumstances of the clerk's position
only
50
county or
that the
its
assertions in the district
anonymous county
court
clerk appears in
NOM
some
now
argues to
this
capacity
and
official
therefore presents an unsettled legal question about whether a government
standing to defend
has
official
refuse to
do
question
it
so NOM
is
Application
not presented
Rather a
state defendants
political
will not
member
NOM
NOM
of
official
advocacy
are already filling
defendants
make
when
NOM
would
state officials
Whatever the merits of
The county
capacity or even acting in
is
that legal
clerk is not claiming
his or her
own
trying to step into the role that the
in order to
make arguments
That an unknown county clerk
result
33
group
does not suffice to
claims and as a
at
in this case
standing or appearing in any
name
a state's marriage laws
is
that the state
personally a
raise the unsettled legal question that
has not established
any reasonable
grant certiorari to address it
10
Finally
its
it
is
worth pointing out
that
NOM
bears an additional
on
efforts to obtain this Court's grant of certiorari
The
intervene
district
Ct Dkt No 120 The
Dist
NOM's
challenge
moot
See Appendix
appeal
B State
895 900
9th
Cir 2007
Processors Ass
2011
Natural
so holding That
proposed intervenor
Cir 1981
if
is
its
Group Inc v
citation
Thus
is
likely
in order for
that the
NOM
City of
effective
Beaumont 506
in a case that the district
Res Def Council Inc 643
because no
NOM's
is
moot once
the
West Coast Seafood
effective
relief
F3d
701
9th
Cir
can be granted to the
v Ford 650
F2d 1142 43
9th
appeal from the denial of a motion to
was
voluntarily
it
now
is
it
omitted Where a proposed
party appeals
moot an
to dismiss
Dismiss
motion to intervene
intervene because the underlying litigation
therefore
a motion
filed
proposed intervenor's appeal
no
May 19 2014
present controversy as to which
dismissing as
have
on
internal
that
judgment
this matter
Outdoor Media
intervenor appeals the denial of
court issues final
law
there exists no
can be granted
relief
the denial of the motion to
Defendant's Motion to
Circuit case
moot because
judgment in
state defendants
to the denial of its
Under Ninth
F3d
court entered
hurdle in
court's
Ninth Circuit will dismiss
dismissed
No
judgment and
NOM's
appeal as
to establish that this Court will grant certiorari
moot
it
must
11
moot
also establish that
Circuit precedent
presents a legal issue worthy of this Court's consideration
NOM
dismissal of
appeal as
its
has offered nothing in support of
NOM
following
that required
Ninth
clear
showing
has failed to establish a reasonable probability that this
Court will grant certiorari to consider the merits of the
and judgment
court's opinion
The road
for
NOM
to reach this Court
ruling that Oregon's constitutional
denial of
achieve
NOM's
motion to intervene
disregard its precedent
appeal of the motion to intervene as
In order to reach this
than for the
Court
NOM
to intervene
the district
lacked
determination
was untimely
defendants motion to dismiss
state
moot
convince
that court erred in
court erred in determining
a significant protectable
the district
persuade
court's ruling
that three individual
NOM's
proceedings in the district
that
court's
NOM's
motion
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that
members
4 obtain
motion to intervene
right to have the existing judgment and order withdrawn
additional
NOM's
the Ninth Circuit Court
determining
denying
must
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to
of Appeals that in spite of the highly deferential review of the district
discretionary
court's
marriage violates the
even more challenging
is
1 convince
and deny the
on
samesex
ban on
of the following
all
district
court
6 a offer
persuasive argument to uphold the state's ban
for
NOM
a reversal of
5 establish
purposes of
the district
on same sex
of
court a
marriage that has
12
if
the district
new judgment
establish Article III
appeal and only then
appeal from the Ninth
Circuit's decision
that this
dealing with
argues
that this
that final step
NOM
whether
1972
law
NOM
may
Court
state's
ban on
under the federal constitution
lines
on
this Court's
one day grant
Application at
15
While
it
satisfy the requirement
that
grant certiorari in this
same issues might come
and
NOM
case
It
is
fails
case
reasonable
to establish
in a case
a plaintiff's
12 13
Along
certiorari to
Nelson 409
in this litigation
that
NOM
of litigation in this
is possible that this
show a
appears to
12 19
violates
Application at
may
or
from NOM's
case
certiorari
the subject
of similar questions to those presented
NOM
parties
and even there
marriage
will
is
court
but lose the
the merits in this
one day grant
samesex
NOM
NOM
certiorari
Application at
similar issue to the one that
whether a
Appeals
Court to grant
this
NOM
case
on
almost exclusively
focuses
the district
to the Ninth Circuit Court of
convince
by
considered
same conclusion
as
court were to reach the
presume would occur
court's
to and thoroughly
mere
rights
the
same
decide
U S 810
remains good
Court
may
possibility
does not
simply not enough to suggest
that the
before this Court in a different case involving different
different state interests
13
NOM
correctly
notes that this Court previously
its
way
and
Court would grant
even
if
NOM
could achieve the
reaching this Court's docket
A difficult
success
potential
on
this case
certiorari in this case
many
this
it
much
it
success
NOM
district
must establish
judgment in
this
in order to
case Even
if
have
690
2008
is
far
this
to
by
in
the district
from the
and
jurisdiction
Oregon and
court reached in
could obtain a summary
consideration That remote possibility
that this
more unlikely due
Court were to take a case from another
that
legal
merits
manages to have the merits again considered
NOM
less likely
U S 674
presumably would reach again in the hypothetical future
would be possible
body of
says nothing about the likelihood of
making such
broadly reverse the conclusions the
will
would need before ever
Geren 553
impediments to even reaching the
if
make
victories
At best
Court
in order to reach those legal issues
See Munaf
the merits other than
works
it
can predict with any certainty But
not something the defendants
the procedural questions throughout
this
at this time a consistent
is
other cases
legal issue as
courts Whether
circuit
again grant certiorari to consider what
is
same
through various district
holdings
And many
issue that arises in this case
are likely to be presented
granted certiorari to
which
court
NOM
then
it
reversal for further
reasonable
probability
Court issue a stay of the order and
the obstacles
NOM
must overcome to have
this
14
Court grant
on
certiorari
the merits in this case were less insurmountable this
Court should refuse to grant a stay in
because the other factors the
this case
Court will consider weigh against the issuance of a stay
III
NOM
reverse either the district
intervene or the
Again
the district
on
ruling
showing
NOM
conflates the
NOM's
court's denial of
would
likely
Without
intervention
that
it
prevail
court's
district
court's denial of
rulings
on
NOM's
has
failed to
challenge
motion to intervene
on
district
meet
its
court's
burden of
to the denial of
of overcoming
setting aside the difficulty
a sufficient likelihood of success
to
to challenge the merits of the
survive the pending motion to dismiss its appeal as
show
will
seeks to have this Court stay
it
NOM
its
Court
merits
the
motion to intervene and the
can never hope
judgment Even
district
judgment on
claims
the merits of plaintiffs
that it
two
that this
NOM's motion
court's denial of
court's
district
prospect
fair
and even
moot
if
NOM
NOM
the
were to
has failed to
the merits to warrant a stay from this
Court
NOM
its
challenge
to the district
as untimely
intervene
intervenor
and
fair
prospect
court's denial of
of success
NOM's motion
on
to
as not presenting a proposed
with a significant
protectable
interest in the
litigation
As
district
discussed
court's
above
denial of
grounds in support of
its
its
NOM
faces
many
challenges in overturning
motion to intervene The
ruling
that
NOM's
district
the
court provided
that
two
15
NOM
any of
its
three
members
has a significant
protectable interest in the litigation For this Court to stay that ruling
must show
that
the district
court's
that
showing for
has a
it
fair
denial of
either
prospect of overturning
NOM's
NOM
both of the grounds for
motion to intervene
It
has
failed to
make
ground
NOM
has a chance
it
successfully reversing the district
determination that
of
court's discretionary
NOM's motion
was
to intervene
untimely
NOM
the district
Circuit
this
is
has
failed to
demonstrate a likelihood of success on an appeal from
as untimely
court's discretionary denial of intervention
unlikely to overturn that discretionary
case Whether an application
when
to intervene
is
on
determination
timely
is
the facts of
measured
The Ninth
by
the
prejudice to the
existing parties from any resulting delay and the reasons for the length of
delay
439
Alaniz
U S 837
intervene
that the
district
was
Tillie
Lewis Foods 572
1978 As
set forth
above
F2d 657
659
9th
Cir cert
the litigation in which
NOM
resolved relatively quickly given that the defendants
ban on
samesex
marriage
court found as fact
was
unconstitutional
as early as January
2014
it
Thus and
was
2014
Dist
Ct Dkt No 115
p46
Yet
sought to
determined
as the
evident that the case
would be resolved on summary judgment motions which the court
heard in April
denied
NOM
set to
did not file
be
its
16
motion to intervene
until
38 hours
before the diapositive
hearing which had been scheduled
court found as fact
2013 Id And
marriage But
on
intervene
NOM
NOM
same sex
2014 when
to announce
NOM
that she
that it
would
Rosenblum
not defend the ban
filing
its
summary judgment hearing As
simply failed to submit any
and as early as
had been considering
Attorney General
the eve of the
115
the district
p48 Given that
court did not abuse
the case
its
on same sex
motion to
the district
its
organization
had
court
was
fully
ago
briefed and ready to
NOM's
and
significant
protectable interests until as they stated in their brief only days
No
held a
credible reason for failing to
determine whether any Oregon member of
Dkt
district
marriage was
many months
acknowledged
itself
again as the
the state's chief legal officer Attorney
Oregon's ban on
since February
press conference
found
that
And
months
had similarly been known for
unconstitutional
intervention
by
the determination
General Rosenblum
October
for three
summary judgment
Dist
Ct
argue
request to
intervene at that point in the proceedings
NOM
asserts that the district
allegations with respect
is
wrong Each
its
timing as true
of the nonconclusory
that they
to
court failed to accept its nonconclusory
by
NOM
allegations
the district
Application at
that it
set forth in its
court and the defendants
should not have been But what
NOM
33 NOM
motion to
are not arguing
ignores is that the district
court
17
made
findings of fact above and beyond what
evidence
and
set forth
when
Dist
those additional
Instead
it
by
NOM
Ct Dkt
No
115
pp 45 48 And
findings are not supported
appears that
is
NOM
nonconclusory allegation
court
nonetheless
can
and
conclude
In
sum
concluding
in fact
that its
abused
on
NOM's
their discretion
that its reasons for its
delay were not
accept
NOM's
The
allegations as true but
justifications for waiting
to appear in this case
no abuse
of discretion
by
the district
court in
motion was untimely While other courts have not
a discretionary
of success
that
the record
question whether to accept
at later points in
a proceeding
NOM
fails to grapple with the difficulty
ruling
by
timeliness It has not given this Court
prospect
does not contend
insufficient to support intervention
the basis of different facts
in overturning
NOM
separate from the question whether that
did
the record reflects
that
what events occurred
a credible reason for choosing to delay action
is
is
by
with
believes that the court could not accept its
wrong again The
nonconclusory allegation as true
district
alleged in accordance
the parties in the litigation about
nonconclusory allegations as true and find
credible
NOM
the district
any reason
in its effort to reverse
court
on
it
faces
the question of
to conclude that
it
has a
fair
as untimely
18
NOM
it
NOM's motion
three
members
has a chance
court's denial of
because
to intervene
of
none of
NOM's
has the necessary interest in the
litigation
NOM
the district
has not established
based
a fair prospect
that
NOM
motion to intervene on the purported
its
individual
who
voted
for
objection to
on
in a county in
same sex
Oregon each
is
members
NOM
of
was no remedy
three
members
interests
in
which
unconnected
legal claims
The
NOM
that it
above
that
had any
NOM
members
an
amending the Oregon
a wedding
has a
planner and a
religious or other
at
The
resolution
no
significant
hand
the rights of
of plaintiffs specific
to the moral and religious objections of these three
district
or carried out
its
marriages provide
court found in favor of plaintiffs

but there
for their injury that could
and those of
show
interests of three
of the litigation
plaintiffs
argument
its
described
whom
of
to
on
marriage Whatever religious or other personal objection
protectable interest in the actual subject
litigation
As
samesex marriage
those individuals might have to other people's
The
failed
Oregon Ballot Measure 36
Constitution to add the ban
clerk working
of success
by
NOM
be
ordered against
or those three
members were never
NOM
or any of its
members NOM's
at issue in the litigation
The
19
remedy
who
was addressed
instead
were enforcing the
It
is
conceivable
a claim related to
same sex
that
same sex
some
services
to
object and might be
of the three individuals might eventually
different
the wedding
samesex
marriage ban
marriages occurring
necessarily be a completely
case For example
appropriately to the government defendants
in
Oregon
accommodation
status or
age
if
the subject
advantages
the individual
P3d 53
of a complaint
facilities
and
is
sex
under
Or Rev
18
years of age or
challenge
couples
Even
if
same sex
married in another
to
restriction
on
of similar statute in
succeeding
marriages were not legal in
Oregon But
or other
and equal
See also Elane
same sex marriages
plaintiffs
jurisdiction could
services to have a ceremony in
to the full
older
to application
could happen with or without
their litigation
privileges
659A 403
Stat
sexual orientation national origin marital
Mexico by wedding photographer opposed
of challenge
in this
planner with a religious objection to providing
without any distinction discrimination or
Photography 309
would
might be asked to provide those services might
couples
of race color religion
account
it
claim than has been adjudicated
all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled
accommodations
but
have
on
New
That type
the merits of
Oregon same sex
seek out those wedding planning
the wedding
same sex
couples can
planner's interest
marry
is
but whether
20
the wedding
because of
same sex
to a
who
has a personal objection to providing a
couple might be asked to do so might object and might
not be able to obtain any accommodation
then have
some
samesex
like the voter
the wedding
if
this
that the three
court
or to this
fair
not be directed at the plaintiffs or any
planner does not give
NOM
member
any basis to
case
members
court
of
NOM
NOM
for purposes
could provide
has
still
failed to
it
of the emergency stay
with a basis to
make any showing
that
it
Article III standing to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Court For
prospect
that additional
of success
and lacks standing
We
to
reason
NOM
on appeal
The member who voted
2013
would
Court were to assume
interevene at the district
would have
clerk might
couple seeking to obtain a license The county clerk
intervene in the district
motion
The county
sign the license
official
but that litigation
and
But even
from the county such as having a
basis to challenge the refusal of the county to provide an
accommodation
other
couples
license
same sex
planner can refuse to provide services to any
for the
challenge
samesex
marriage ban has
no
greater
to the ban than any other voter in Oregon
appeal Hollingsworth
Perry 133
S Ct 2652
2668
have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend
21
of a state statute
We
for the
decline to
may not
do so
objection
individual
litigation
to
same sex
same sex
who happens
have chosen not to
wedding planner
same sex
who may
couple seeking
or
to celebrate
standing to challenge the constitutionality of that
on appeal The same is
to a
state officials
here A
be asked to provide services to a
provide a license
official
time
first
their marriage lacks Article III
marriage
when
true for a county clerk
couple but
who
who may
be asked to
marriage For both the wedding planner and the
may
to be a county clerk their objections
concerning whether they have a
marriage but they have no connection
lead to other
right to not play a role in
samesex
claims of a right to marry
to plaintiffs
NOM
has
failed to
demonstrate a
fair prospect of success in its appeal
the district court's denial of its motion to intervene
untimely and
NOM
protectable interest in this litigation
the
many
motion
challenges
to intervene
showing needed
any of
its
NOM's
has not demonstrated
court's final
for this
judgment
that it
NOM
NOM
if
necessary to overturn the district
NOM
motion was
members has
Moreover even
has
of
a significant
could overcome
court's denial of its
has Article
failed to
Court to issue of stay of the motion
III
make
standing
the
to intervene
22
samesex
NOM
marriage even
if
fair
prospect of success on
ban on
Oregon's constitutional
NOM
had any
and
basis to intervene
could establish the necessary Article
III
standing for an appeal
on the merits
The arguments
Application at
NOM
presents to this Court are the
bans on
in an effort to defend
19 31 None
samesex
No 13 1861
cases For
2014
marriage
of those arguments have been successful
federal courts to consider and address similar challenges
Wolf
same arguments
WL
2058105
in the
M D Pa May 20 2014
13
See Whitewood
collecting
of this emergency motion for a stay the defendants
purposes
NOM
focus
on two primary points
First the arguments
same sex
NOM
would
marriage were not hidden from the
withstand
reached
judicial scrutiny
the conclusion
court
NOM's
claims
defendants
took
very seriously
could be made in support of the
fit
with other
The
record
their obligations
the state's legal position
arguments would
that the state's
ban could
shows
under
not
made
in other
abandoned
that the state defendants
in this case are unsupported
on
court in this case While
district
and they presented
obligations
present
in support of Oregon's ban
they carefully analyzed the arguments
jurisdictions to support similar bans
district
present
state
their
that the state
law to develop and
considering not only possible arguments that
same sex
marriage
ban
but also
how
those
legal policies of the state as well as the
23
obligation of the state defendants
all
Oregonians
NOM
now
marriage
Thus
the district
puts forward about
this Court's prior
arguments
that a
same sex
to protect the federal
court
was
fully
informed of the arguments
the state's general authority in the area of
summary decision
in Baker
v Nelson
As
is
from the
NOM's
The second
large and growing
premise of the
defining
As
body of
NOM
2013
conclusion
it
remains
NOM's
on
this
on what
research
contradicting
holding i
protection
institution
point
couples
to marry
its
has no
the
the central
conclusion
that
rational
Application at
24
court an equal protection claim
may
be a concern across the
Court in United States
recognized that states have
describes as
it
NOM
core a state specific claim
this
reason
alter that conclusion
reliance
one man one woman
at its
there is little
on appeal
social science
samesex
and
would
to any legitimate government interest
about the rights of
with
its
in the litigation
court's equal
district
opinion the court carefully
court's
in reaching
point concerns
nation but
district
participation
court or
marriage as a
relationship
NOM
19 24 28 30
apparent
to believe that
and the
marriage ban is necessary to support a traditional
definition of marriage and a preferred parenting arrangement
Application at
rights of
constitutional
The
defendants agree
Windsor 133
Ct
great deal of latitude in determining
2675
the
24
laws
govern marriage and domestic
that will
while the
state defendants
context of all of
NOM
would
defense
of the
in Windsor or
NOM
raised
by
many
their biological
same sex
father
and
tradition
and mother and
why
parents
NOM
NOM
states
those couples
finds
no
support
disregard for the values
have severely
do best when
that children
would be
that it
rational
for a
the likelihood that children will
Application at
to stand in the shoes of the state defendants
Some
in order to put forth a
24 25
This
should not be permitted to intervene in
Oregon has adopted
relations
line of
this
restricted the ability of
only to marry but also to establish legal
by
show
marriages to increase
their biological
shows a complete
state
of the state's legal principles
other of this Court's cases
litigation
in the area of marriage and domestic relations
be raised by
plaintiffs in the
ban on same sex marriage Such an argument
any
state to prohibit
within the state But
Oregon law
jettison
relations
as the law of the
same sex
couples not
with the children being raised
or to adopt children or care for children through the state
foster care system Oregon has not To the contrary Oregon has long
recognized the value of
Or Rev
Stat
same sex
106.305.1
The
couples as parents
district
and as families See
court carefully considered
Oregon
public
In part
Footnote
continued
25
policy and
its
longstanding
values
No 118 pp 20 26 NOM's
and appeal
to intervene
this
in reaching its
arguments to
this
decision
See Dist
Court
and
if
Ct Dkt
they are permitted
case to any appellate court

completely ignore
what Oregon has chosen to establish
in this
area exercising
well established
its
sovereign authority over domestic relations within the state
Thus
even
this
if
Court agrees to consider an appeal in another case
dealing with a state's ban
merits of
any
litigation
court undertook
Oregon
Branch
it
Oregon The
equal
carefully considered all of
law develops
Court's case
for
in
on same sex marriage
may
to consider
in such a
be appropriate
may
not fully resolve the
protection
Oregon law
manner
in a future
whether to challenge
it
analysis the district
as
it
should
If this
to call into question that analysis
case for Oregon's Executive
the injunction that
now
prohibits the
samesex
from implementing the
defendants
marriage That decision should
state's
laws in such a way as to deny
with the
rest entirely
state's
Executive
continued
4 This
state
has a strong interest in promoting stable and lasting families including
the families of
samesex
provided
ability
achieve
their fullest
106.300
Short title
to
5 ORS
protections
and status and the
potential
to
106.340
benefits and responsibilities granted or
law with the values embodied
All Oregon families should be
legal
in
Certain privileges
imposed
immunities rights
are intended to better align Oregon
the Constitution and public policy of this state and to
further the state's interest in the promotion of stable and lasting families by extending
benefits protections
children
that
and
responsibilities to
are comparable
by the laws of
this
state
to
committed
those provided
same sex
partners and their
to married individuals and their children
26
Branch which answers
to the citizens of
analyze and potentially address any
someday
IV
alter the legal landscape
NOM
irreparable
make
is
the
proper party to
questions raised should this Court
surrounding
these issues
result
The
new
Oregon and
from a
final
harm will
that
NOM
must
establish to obtain
from denial of a stay Again
result
NOM
showing
none to the three members
points to a
number
Oregon and
stay
NOM
is
has
of possible
that
failed to
harms
purports to represent in this litigation This
it
presumably because they have not been harmed by the
taking place in
will
denial of a stay
element
the required
harm
not be harmed
will
if
same sex
but
is
marriages
those marriages continue
to
take place
Instead
NOM
Oregonians and the
Oregon
NOM
NOM
same sex
Application at
marriages
It
is
couples
not
up
to
its
the district
court's orders
now
here
now
respect
to seek a stay based
state
and
in a
way
its
citizens
state
it
citizens or the couples
NOM
or years from
are
34 37 With
about what might happen to the
day months
who
harm the
on
simply is not up to
who
its
are entering into
purported concerns
should the law change one
that calls into question the validity
of
27
NOM's
Whatever
have considered
defendants
may
be further
the potential harms and risks that
litigation in this area that
issues resolved in this case
problem should
Pennsylvania
same sex
now
an
day
come
ever
now
there
is
obtaining
alternative
also to the
access
no
NOM
Governor and chief legal
thorny
down
37
the state's
on
Instead
ban on
the merits
contrary to
same sex
couples are
Oregon's registered domestic partnerships

but
only to marriage
whatever
officer are willing to take
ruling along with those
to
of the
that
by Oregon
confronted
Application at
to seek to prolong this litigation
should be granted
some
as will other states such as California and
federal benefits that attach
court's
there
not only to the state benefits previously offered through
to marriage
many
uncertainty
the
someday
revisiting
state is willing to address
in which judicial decisions striking
assertions See
the district
The
might require
marriage were left to stand without an appeal
For
NOM's
that
members
considerations for its three individual
same sex
samesex
and deny the
couples in
couples
If
the state's
risks
it
rights the district
is
accompany
not for
NOM
court found
Oregon
Conclusion
NOM
has
failed to
meet any of the
court's denial of
NOM
criteria it
must establish to obtain a
motion to intervene or the
district
28
court's order
NOM's
and judgment
in this
case The
defendants
ask
this
Court to deny
motion for a stay
Respectfully
submitted
F ROSENBLUM
ELLEN
753239
Attorney General
ANNA
M JOYCE
MARY
013112
General
Solicitor
H WILLIAMS
911241

mary williams msn com
Attorneys for Defendants

Jennifer
Woodward
JENNY
MADKOUR 982980
032300
Office of the
Multnomah County
Attorney
SE
501
Hawthorne Blvd Suite 500
Telephone
503 988 3138
Counsel for Defendant

Randy Walruff
AMJ blt 5355748
APP 1
1
THE
DEANNA
NELSON

DISTRICT OF OREGON
HON MICHAEL
GEIGER and JANINE

ROBERT DUEHMIG and WILLIAM
GRIESAR
Plaintiffs
No
6 13 cv 01834 MC
No
6 13 cv 02256 TC

Oregon JENNIFER WOODWARD
in her
official capacity
as State
his official capacity as Multnomah
County Assessor
Defendants
LISA CHICKADONZ
and CHRISTINE
FUND
Plaintiffs
v
capacity
as Governor of Oregon
capacity
in her
official capacity
as State
his official capacity as Multnomah
County Assessor
Defendants
APP 2
2
REPORTER'S
TRANSCRIPT
EUGENE
WEDNESDAY
OREGON
MAY
PAGES
5
COURT
OF PROCEEDINGS
14
2014
55
REPORTER
Kristi
Anderson
Eugene Oregon 97401
541 431 4112
7
8
Kristi Anderson
orduscourts gov
OF COUNSEL
10
APPEARANCES
11

ROBERT DUEHMIG
AND WILLIAM
12
13
14
15
Lake
Law
1906
James
GEIGER
GRIESAR
Perriguey
LLC
SW Madison Street
503 227 1928
Fax 503 334 2340
Works
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lea Ann Easton

Dorsay
Easton LLP
Suite 440
Portland OR 97258
503 790 9060
Fax 503 790 9068
Email leaston dorsayindianlaw
com
JANINE
NELSON
APP 3
3

PLAINTIFFS BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION
FUND
AND CHRISTINE
TANNER
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson
Schaller
975 Oak Street
Suite 1050
Eugene OR 97401
541 683 2506
Fax 541 484 0882
Email jmiddletonjjlslaw com
Johnson
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Kevin Diaz
American Civil Liberties
Box 40585
Portland OR 97240
503 227 6928
Email kdiaz aclu or org
PO
Union
AD
Misha
Isaak
Perkins Cole LLP
10th Floor
503 727 2086
Fax 503 346 2086
Email MIsaak perkinscoie

15
16
17
18
19
ACLU
com
Thomas
Johnson
Perkins Coie LLP
10th Floor
503 727 2176
Fax 503 727 2222
Email TRJohnson perkinscoie
com
20
21
22
23
24
25
FOR THE DEFENDANTS

JENNIFER WOODWARD
JOHN
KITZHABER
Anna
Joyce
1162 Court Street NE
Salem OR 97301
503 378 4402
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
AND
APP
1
2
3
4
Sheila
Potter
Portland OR 97201
971 673 1880
Fax 971 673 5000
6
RANDY WALDRUFF
FOR

By phone
5.01 SE Hawthorne Blvd Suite 500
Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138
Fax 503 988 3377
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
THE
DEFENDANT
Jenny
Madkour
501 SE Hawthorne
Boulevard
Suite 500
Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138
Fax 503 988 3377
Email jenny
mmadkour multco us
16
17
FOR
18
Leonard
Feldman
By phone
Stoel Rives LLP
Seattle
Suite 3600
Seattle WA 98101
206 624 0900
Fax 206 386 7500
Email ljfeldman stoel com
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OREGON
UNITED
FOR MARRIAGE
AMICUS
BRIEF
APP
FOR
FOR
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
THE
PROPOSED INTERVENOR
MARRIAGE
INC
DEFENDANT
NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION
John
Eastman
o Chapman University
Fowler School of
Orange CA 90807
877 855 3330
Fax 714 844 4817
Email jeastman chapman edu
K
SW
Roger
Harris
5000
Meadows Road
Suite 400
503 968 1475
Fax
503 968 2003
Law
LLP

11
GENERAL
12
INDEX
13
Argument by
Mr
Eastman
Pages
14
Argument by
Mr
Johnson
Pages
15 32
15
Argument by
Ms
Potter
Pages
21
16
Ruling
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page
41
22 36
35
38
40
APP 6
6
PROCEEDINGS
WEDNESDAY
THE
Thank
Ms Pew
THE
District
of
10
Oregon
is
THE
12
So I
is
of
14
their interests
I
today
to make
Rummell
21
behalf of
begin
group
who
maybe
each
to represent
themselves
introduce
everyone
It
takes
more
itself
the hearing
go ahead
Geiger et
you
is going
with
the plaintiffs
and
Your
I
Honor
will
Tom
Johnson
also be speaking
if
you'd
for the
today
on
the Geiger plaintiffs
COURT All right Thank
23
MR
JOHNSON
25
Michael
your introductions
plaintiffs
our
13 01834
by having
THE
my
Court for the
the Honorable
22
24
case
oral argument
we could
MR JOHNSON
20
our
District
in session
guess we can introduce
So let's
19
States
al
et
for each
time sometimes than
like
morning
the time set for Case
the attorneys
17
now
seated
like to call
United
thought
13
18
you'd
Good
2014
11
16
if
versus Kitzhaber
15
remain
you everyone
CLERK
Now
al
Please
14
presiding
McShane
COURT
MAY
clients
The
We have
again
only person
We
who
you
I won't introduce
did
is
that
last
not here
time
today
is
all
of
APP 7
Mr
THE
COURT
Okay
All
right
For the
MS
POTTER
Sheila
Oregon
Justice
Department
you Mr Johnson
defense
Potter
me
for the
I am sorry
of
the Oregon
Justice
of
county defendants
THE
10
All
right
11
MR JOHNSON
12
with
13
Organization
me Roger
So I
do is recite
have
the
I would
18
law
19
briefs to
20
strong
21
legal issues we
and
try
to
read
22
intervenors
McShane
John
Eastman
intervenors
probably
24
the
keep
of
to keep
some of
need
to
25
intervene
pose
the hyperbolic
each
I will
want
on the
statements
side has very
in the
different
but there are
some
resolve
more questions
to
Mr
is on the National Organization

But
don't
the discussion focused
going to
burden
National
the record
briefs into
like
what
23
and
you Mr Eastman
Thank
the briefs and
a minimum I know
views
proposed
COURT All right
15
17
Judge
you
for Marriage
THE
to
For the
Harris on behalf of the
14
16
Department
I will be arguing on behalf of the state and the
excuse
Thank
ask then
the
other
I am
Eastman
because
for Marriage to
parties if
they
APP 8
8
have
particular
2
3
Mr
So
Roberts
fairly
Eastman I will
We
standing
constitutionality
officials
have
a private
of
have
for the first
Mr
that
start with
Eastman
says
Chief Justice
holding in Hollingsworth
blunt
states
He
on anything
comments
never
before
upheld
party to defend
of a state
chosen
not
statute
to
We
the
the
where
state
to do so
decline
here
time
So after that statement in Hollingsworth is there
9
10
any law
11
court
12
the
or cases
that
Branch
MR
13
can
cite
that is still
Well
EASTMAN
14
mischaracterizes what
15
specifically
16
not
seeking
And
18
THE
19
briefing that
20
statements
21
overlapping
22
to
and
it
to
that
if
be
us
MR EASTMAN
23
24
defend
25
injury'is
the
they won't
Well
statute
because
different
than
think
about
that
They were
particularized
they
to
say
state
injuries
in your
up with
your
are somewhat
defend
that's
in for
law
am mixing it
and
to stand
Honor I
you continue
in the newspaper
the federal
on behalf of the
intervene
or maybe I
should
party
Hollingsworth is
COURT But
is
where
good
Your
representing their separate
17
to
allowed a private
has in fact
Executive
you
it
right
somebody
But
seeking
the party has particularized
standing
has
in the shoes of the
to
APP 9
9
attorney
represent the
Hollingsworth case
County was
because
have
general
state
The
have
county
but that
10
We
11
THE
and the
clerk
was
have
COURT
and
not
county
case
deputy
before
clerk
to
think
the
the Imperial
that was
county
enforce
the court
did not seek to
clerk
clerk
in that
obligation to
county
not claiming
itself
any independent
are
But the county
itself
the county
clerk
said
us because
didn't
there
the law
may
well
the
intervene
seeking
intervene
to
But not in any official
capacity
you
don't
13
MR EASTMAN
14
THE
15
We
denied intervention
12
it
to defend
COURT
Well
How
Your
Honor
do you distinguish
Karcher
May
on that issue
MR
16
17
actually
18
way
19
authority
20
Supreme Court
21
attorney
EASTMAN Well
think
Karcher
it's
under
22
The
May
their continuing
24
but it
the state
wouldn't
25
injury
They
them
had
they
May involved
our case and it
to intervene
goes
no
other than the
to intervene
when
our
state
the
defend
intervention
because
to
had two legislators who had
Supreme Court
23
was
much closer
had allowed
general
Karcher
of the United
States
rejected
after they lost their offices
had no longer
particularized
any
particularized
injury as long
as they were
APP
10
10
positions
in those legislative
Here
our county
position and
a ruling by this court
statewide
he or she would
injunction
THE
COURT
Well
permitted to proceed
officers
this
is Justice
11
MR
EASTMAN
12
THE
COURT So
14
clerk
15
have
16
court
17
seal
They
are
avoided
about
18
any
somebody
not
20
because
21
some
22
objection
23
that
county
was
to a
to
your
And
declaration
it
they
were
state
As soon
standing
lost
about your
clerk
who works
a dialogue
with
made this statement
clerk
to
They
at some
couple
have
point
and
they
been
that was
way
as a
We have
injured
filed
am not striking
I
know
there
mean
the recent
was
in
a religious
declaration
I
You
under
issue a license
have
it
this
religious personal objection
most current
is
case
in this
orders about declarations
as a
by the
were
they
an appearance
at having
samesex
A
have
Orechio were
capacity
I know
what
making
they may have
seek to
Well
attempt
works
by
would be bound
Roberts
in some county in Oregon
protective
who
and
only because
You simply have
19
25
Karcher
as they lost that capacity
is an individual
know
the plaintiffs
in an official
acting
13
to be in that
issued
permitted
10
continues
you
which
24
clerk
a motion to
APP
11
11
strike I
I don't
who filed
forget
think
adds a whole
it
more information which
target
moving
this
bit
clerk
it
Every
we get
But
lot
other
than
me to believe
leads
little
your clerk
another declaration
But
am not hearing
capacity
official
relationship
between
MR
are
in Hollingsworth
your clerk
11
the
reason
cases
14
those
15
I want to unpack
16
The
and
being
in NAACP
have
this
first
been
is NOM's
17
represent
18
or the voters and then those
19
the interests
So the reason
20
is is the same reason
21
didn't
22
were
23
NAACP
disclose
that
wanted
Alabama
There
Court in that
who
government
vague
Alabama
thirdparty
particular
we are
to
provider
interests
who
the clerk
the doctors
disclose
cases that
so
issues
wedding
not disclosing
are a whole host
of
where
standing
or the
think
large number
get the discrete
their confidential
line of
we
problem
is
I think
and
of the clerk
wouldn't
The
a number of cases
to kind of
agency
relationship
Well wait a minute
we are
There
An agency
their local
EASTMAN
13 well established
25
is
any agency
relationship I mean Roberts goes on and on about
24
who
us a little
giving
12
is
more information
10
bit
questions well
time somebody
it
am going to allow
of
married customers
services or that
their members
cases from the Supreme
specifically say when
you
APP
12
12
have
confidentiality
might
situation
that
standing
So that's
got problems about
him or
intervening
clearly
Perry case
13
to
that
that
herself
that's
have
the prior round
address
that
clerk
The
down
when
statewide
So as an official
by that
injunction
of
was
would
had not
clerk
of that
language
it
when
may well
because
it
the
finally
issues
the state
I think
who
think
is going
there
to be
would
be standing
So now
the question
member
22
private
capacity
23
clerk's
behalf those claims
25
the
in the
a clerk
injunction
21
24
does
there
may well have standing
comes
20
is
in Perry
in our brief says that you know
16
clearly
third party
the clerk
think
case But the
19
And if
because
15
bound
the
that though
own behalf
in that
intervene
14 be different
18
for the
standing
have
exactly
that
that
done
piece of
clerk's
that's
doesn't
we cite
17
the harassment
opportunity
we
the second
on the
And
12 moved
why
lost
be standing
10
11
be
sets up the
Now
clerk
would
as a result of
follow
that
yourself the
exposing
of us with
And
these
being
think
is
concerns
a
can
about
member allow
what
we
that
clerk
by being a
harassment
us to
in her
raise
on the
set out in our brief on
For example if
a clerk
this
was
APP
13
13
going to
to resign because
be forced
could not do the job
after a decision from here
made that job different
it
had
had
been
when
the clerk
would he a personal
ever
know
haven't
us
given
county I mean
even
being from Oregon
county
under
imagine if
large one
there
harm I mean
seal
the
Lake
that
duties
you
name of the
we looked at the census data
population
are almost no gay
that's
non populace
County is a fairly
but not much
we
may find
that
in fact
Lake
information
to decide
harm it
is
real
willing to make
you
harm
what
that How would
know
County for example and
for someplace like Lake

not
I ever
would
that that's a personal
even
run for office
first
COURT How
THE
than
know
families registered
in
is this a hypothetical
or are Lake
an accommodation
County officials
for this particular
individual
But
we
have
that's
the way
you have
got a phantom
going
to
back
happen
MR EASTMAN
think
the Southwest
pleaded
facts
THE
here
take
my word
to
the court is
for everything
him
Well
two
Center says
things
you
have
First of
to take
Not
MR EASTMAN
conclusory
facts though
Not conclusory
facts
but
all
the well
in a motion to intervene
as true
COURT
to
formulated it
APP
14
14
THE
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
We
We
redacted
identifying the
the
what
are
Well
we
problem
clerk
I can't
let
could
I'd
11
But
12
official
13
in an official
exactly
who
COURT
I'd
is actually
like
know
you
the
means that there
17
authorization There does have
18
are going
clerk
19
is
20
intervenor
clerk
is independently
question
24
clerk
county
intervene
doesn't have
to
the
other
in our
reply
which
be a specific
to
be authorization if
the purpose
not
of the
so
they
which
thirdparty
here
THE
23
to
elected
to expend county funds They are
know
from the
as we represented
16
parties on
from the
capacity
the county
22
without
is part of
declaration
authorizing
brief
21
the county
the county
declaration
15
25
identify
seal
under
the names and
which
I could submit
MR EASTMAN Well
you
submit something
have to
THE
14
this then
me propose
with
clerk
county
inquiry
beyond
could submit a declaration

because
with
am faced
Well
They
could
10
That's
COURT Okay Let

we
have
kind
into the issue of
I will
hear
me hear from the
of jumped off
of my Hollingsworth
the substantial
from the parties on
other
harm to the
that
APP
15
15
Mr
Johnson
do you
MR
JOHNSON
Yes
specifically
THE
interests
Organization
COURT
of
Let's
the clerk
From a review
10
it
not here
It
11
12
was
13
of the
What
NOM is
of
brief
they
had
all
standing
They
to
of
this
the county
do here is
are attempting
two
15
going to
stand in the shoes of our member
16
going to
also then
17
office
adopt
that
reply
capacity
to be the office
attempting
NOM's
but conceded
14
their official
that
really borrow
to say we are
and
then
we are
capacity
the
of that county
18
And
the kind
19
interest that they
20
21
exercise
22
National
Honor
Your
of their reply
would have
court
levels
a member
in their official
the
before
about the substantial
talk
Yes
JOHNSON
seemed that
person was
question
for Marriage
MR
brief
first
Honor What
Your
that's
to go
want
it's
of personal
are trying to
a personal
issue
It's
issue or personal
then
assert through that is
really kind
of
a free
issue
And
the
23
is
doesn't
have
24
And
so they
can't
25
that
office
office
of the county
a religion The office

represent the
county
whatever
itself
They
county
is
can't
that
secular
adopt
APP
16
16
The
in terms of
you look
at that
is what you were
talking
the
if
personal
interest then which
about
actually Your Honor in front of the court in the
summary judgment
you are
in the Misha Isaak
the
all
all
of the
in all
about
talking
10
eight
counties
12
applied
for So
13
person
17
It's
Ms
Easton
spoke
19
can't
have
it's
have
20
official
case
been
free exercise
And
we
were
There are a number
of
22
legal and in
of
23
any
24
recognized
of those
none
states
by any
THE
is
the
it's
all
of
years
six
applied for
states
we
where
night
seven
last
that this
face
this
on just the
case
which
hearing There
religiously neutral
What
law
law you
there
at the research
where
could
the
last
night
gay marriage is now

not find a single case
in
court
COURT
or
a free exercise issue
the peyote
claim
looking
ever
speculative
applicable
generally
would
is actually
at
last
speculative
not
or
which
about
21
25
that
never
completely
issue that this

Smith
is that
or
it's
years
by my reading
also completely
the
18
were
that
county
14
under
Exhibit
partnerships that have
there
11
16
the evidence
think
for the last seven
domestic
And
personal
submitted
We
declaration
of the
is exactly
the counties
of
15
briefing there
do you mean
by
free
exercise
APP
17
17
right
Sorry if
MR
JOHNSON
you
drug
said well
it's
peyote And
the
what
Ms
that there
test
and
they
Justice
was
that
anyone
12
get
13
So it's
14
there
And
16
speculative
17
have
18
accommodations
19
that
20
the
21
Honor
22
function
23
talk
24
talking
then
any evidence
about
of
the
about
What
opinion
with
not
finding
here
law would
be
of this county has to
would
have
law
get married
to
in terms of the
the claim that there's
that
this
we don't
particular
county
clerk
be made for this
that
That
else could do the stapling or the filing
Lee
what
State
state
in this
And
people
smoke
that was
and
the neutral
door
to
they
hearing
there's also a question
could
forms The
that
that
right
a neutral
it's
nature
somebody
in the
any two
neutral
15
exercise
generally
who walks
know
you
the last
Scalia wrote
no free
the
at
have
Scalia
Justice
the feedback
had a
peyote And
on
case
Smith
for the state
up positive
said
court
Here
11
came
working
in the
remember
Easton
case
So in that
a person
there was
10
25
am not
Oregon
v
law
happened
clear
Your
marriage is really a state
happened
Perry
case is quite
of
in that
state
Schwarzenegger
case
and
but
we
can
we are
here
in Lee
State
was
the lawsuit
was
APP
18
18
filed
Then
said okay
came
Measure 36
Well
of the state
that's
And
Measure
constitution
the Supreme
then
36 is
the privileges
not
Court
violation
and immunities
clause
And
marriages And
issued
3,000
before
Measure
That's
said not so fast
Multnomah County
so all
of
those
36 came So they are all
And
what
the Supreme Court
the
state
THE
COURT
is
the
is
We
have
marriages
came
valid
of Oregon
no
said was
the arbiter of marriage in
Oregon
Multnomah
when
might
is why
which
have
to
been decided
in fact
the clerk
cases
remind
did you
MR JOHNSON
ask
that
So we
Oregon
read
clerk
one
are
But
now
there
and
are
one of
of
the
especially
the first
I am sorry You
some
cases
that
the holdings is
has no standing
case
out of the
and
do
Your
should not
this
Honor I
imagined that
you
question
filed our lawsuit
and the office
assessor the office
of
Multnomah
the official
against the
State
County and the
capacity
have
that
party
as a
So why
might
of
against
should be thrown
on marriage where
the county clerk
been named
have
those
me
you file
of a
forget
did
County equivalent
arguments
I
So why
of
county
in order to
have
APP
19
19
have in
to
purposes
have
county
State
of caution
in light
of
in that office
in front
of the court for
an abundance
Lee
of the order that we would hope would be issued

But we knew
COURT
THE
other
clerks
who
Well
are going
MR
And we knew
county
10
we
11
under
is
knew
here
that
Lee
12
JOHNSON
we
why
Exactly
at the
time
tell
Honor
Your
them
that office
15
it's
16
name in the caption
position
and
tomorrow
who
named
some
But we
Your
not his
germane
20
we
21
disrespect
22
of this lawsuit what
23
marriage
is the
the
Honor
but
he holds that office
for purposes
of the
what
his personal
it's
THE
Waldruff
COURT
views
when
but
we
have
we don't
his personal
The
it
argument
comes
to
If
name
views
relief
care
that
not
or the relief
are requesting in the order what his personal
Mr
that
we would have put their
any of the issues that
to
person
care
here
19
county
person
and
we
personal
that
Waldruff
him because
don't
are requesting
is the
other
18
24
order
State
14
to
same
and I realize
might be susceptible
holds
17
to the
Exactly
But importantly Randy

that
not other counties and
to be subject
but please don't
13
25
then
views
that
no
for purposes
are about
same sex
is that somebody's
religion can be a
APP
20
20
harm
significant
MR
it
can't
JOHNSON
It
Your Honor
Perry is
before
the last paragraph
having
a private
state
happening
Perry
very
clear As
said
you
constitutionality
not
in this context
the
final
have
intervene
the
never
sentence
recognized
to defend
the
statute and that's
or state
or Hollingsworth
said that we
come in to
party
what's
here
So in terms of
10
may be very important to
11
come
12
and
13
happening
14
personal
in as
as
those
here
And
vows
personal
someone
they
effectively
although
are not
and that's
they are just doing
it
they
you can't
as the attorney
defend
general
what's
based
on those
views
15
16
hyperbole
17
And
18
this case
19
need
20
NOM's
21
times
I know
want'to
at the
outset and
I am completely
confident
brief there
to
don't
that
want
all
that
to
dwell
of the
address
was
just very
reference
COURT
24
MR
JOHNSON Okay
25
THE
COURT I
YOu
know
to
quickly
on
to
in
a number of
discuss
that
think
it
was a poorly
that
but I
the
collusion
don't want
the
lawyers in
in good faith Your Honor
are acting
I wanted
you referenced
I
THE
23
but
Hollingsworth
22
be
could
very
APP
21
21
choice It
poorly
discretionary intervention
where
conduct
conversation
word
it
does
make
people
this
on
court
MR
JOHNSON
THE
COURT
10
this issue if
whether
in terms of
want
to go down
road
each
none So I
has seen
don't
want a
it
about
me question
are accusing
when
Okay
So I
she wants
want
to
to weigh
hear
Ms
from
in on the
issue
Potter
of
on
the
clerk
MS
11
12
repeat
13
won't
POTTER
I think
I think
15
substantial
16
unable to
17
if
18
develop
19
would
20
she
21
carry out
22
delegate
it's
this court
out
were
to enter
expressed
not that the clerk
order
an
some point
down
in which
duties
would
be
It
that
is
then events might
the
line
he or she does
part of his or her duties

any of
And
24
the proposition
25
to want
to
the
the clerk
himself in a position or herself in which
am sorry
23
that
his or her official
such that at
won't
points
made some good
important here
legal interest is
carry
find
Johnson
Honor I
Your
those
repeat
14
Mr
you
Thank
those duties
don't
find
that just
do part of
to
and does
someone
any support
having
your job is
not want
to
not want
to
else
in any case
personal
he or
law
for
preference
not
substantial
legal
APP
22
22
interest such
think
interests
this person
that it
with
represented
attempting to
people
next
official
and
election
11
or her interests it
12
capacity
13
that
in appearing
THE
burden so
16
comments
should be done
not through
give
18
hypothetical
19
who
20
there
21
abortion
22
public
23
of
had
was
Suppose
Mr
had
that
challenging
said they
hospitals and
don't
it
was
of
to argue
in the
this
for his
interest
you have
of final
public
group
the
reply on these
a parallel
hospital
with
a nurse
to performing abortions and
state
from the
personally
Eastman
strong moral objection
a case
interest
So I want to give
we
that he is
you the kind
MR EASTMAN
17
just
has
for him or her
nongovernmental
COURT Okay
will
to vote
this
Eastman
of this county
in this case
he or she is a member of
15
25
upon
an act
if
of this county
Mr
as
county official
14
hide
as an official
10
24
to
troubling
because
county
of this
be called
if
some
in as an official
is seeking
take
who will
and
to transparency
only come
here
an intervention
also really raises
respect
can
as an elected
it
would support
have
statute
to
dealing with
be performed in the
challenging
as a violation
that
unconstitutional
And
the relief
employee in that
hospital
sought
was
that every
would be obligated
to
public
perform
APP 23
23
these
abortions The
appearance
organization
on her
it
fact
that
sufficient
standing
10
to
give
for the
And
to
make
part
an
of an
abortion
there
was
personal
duties
by that litigation
her standing
organization
here's
want
but she is
by her public
is affected
behalf
own
that opposes
The
that
nurse doesn't
what
of
that are
I think
and hence
which
the Oregon
interest
but
going
to
is
the third party
she is a member
Supreme Court
said in
Lee
The
11
12
licenses
13
county
15
that
the
16
licenses
then
county
17
have
in Oregon
The
it
clerk
goes
by statute
has in the
plaintiffs
through
on to
injunction
19
reach
20
performance
21
this injunction
22
requested
23
that are involved
24
they
25
as a result of this court's
every
the named
county
list
state
clerk So
the
issuance
here have
18
to
of issuing
marriage
long
been
function
And
14
ministerial aspects
sought
litany of
of marriage
statewide
defendants
the
duties
county
that will
clerk
in the
of those duties is clearly going to be bound by

if
And it
this court
will
the
relief
implicate interests
because
ran for that office
grants
the job that that

will
they
of hers or his
person
now be dramatically
ruling and
have
took
when
different
the injunction
that
APP
24
24
plaintiffs
have
The
sought
standard
than
it
one
particularized
injury that the Chief Justice
Hollingsworth
a protectable
THE
interest
the subject
injury
COURT
relating
10
the kind
Roberts
it's
nurse
the
abortion
12
they were required to participate
Here
of marriage It's
15
office
16
going
17
things I
18
suppose
It's
not handing
office to
don't
but you can
mean
file
MR EASTMAN
sought is not
20
have
21
an injunction
22
those
23
obligated
24
injunction
relevant
It's
to perform
THE
it
Then
that would
licenses
is
out
marriage that
to a clerk's
19
25
the
was
of
minimal
generalized
talking
in
about
protectable
transaction
would be part of
the transaction
14
very
the property or the transaction
11
13
significant
your hypothetical
and the
is
that is
action
of this
In
not
otherwise
been
interest and it's
It's
But
to
have
for intervention
That's
would
certificate
mean
they have
in any
duty
rights
in an
are two different
something I
county
their
require
of
if
marriage and
to file
the relief
to
an
transaction
the conferral
get paperwork
this county
that
that
is
that
case
every
clerk
the plaintiffs
They
county
that
in response
to
have
clerk
will
such
COURT Okay All right In the
to
sought
issue
be
an
again I
APP 25
25
1 turn to Roberts in the Hollingsworth case

2
to talk
issue
because
about
and
what
what
there
you are
are
with
failure to defend
organization
government
the Executive
who
11
replace
will
12
answer
to
13
case
in this
I mean it
that
relationship
would
be me telling
you Ms Rosenblum
to
Executive
Branch with
that
disagree
the law
and
a private
to the
Ms
Rosenblum
to
that doesn't
you
And
what
Roberts
one
is
said
Yet petitioners
answer to
15
no review
16
them
17
are not
18
all
19
one amicus explains the proponents
20
have
21
period of time as defenders
22
however
23
defend
25 Branch
say
am going
an agency
14
24
of
powers
in
stand
is right next
the
law
interpretation
without any agency
And
10
the court to do is
of your organization
Branch's
the
he continues
really is a separation of
asking
members
think
where
no
they decide
what arguments
Unlike
to
California's
elected
at
make
regular
they
or elected
at
removal
As
for their
apparently
for an unspecified
of the
initiative
extent they choose
to
it
And
should
how to make
general
intervals
appointment
and to whatever
and
attorney
No provision provides
an unelected
for themselves with
isn't
not
get
he really saying
involved
in who
that the Judicial
and how the Executive
APP 26
26
is going
Branch
MR
to
make
with
discussion by focusing
that initiative
due respect
all
generalized
provided
they
12
question
13
injuries
where
14
And
15
where
16
government
17
nothing
18
was
19
cases
people
we
have
itself
was
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
objecting
that
in a
was being
alleged specific
asked
injury
intervene
Roberts
But there
context
That's
Well
particularized
I had any case
earlier if
allowed to
environmental
21
was
I think doesn't deal with the
recently
COURT
23
they
Justice
THE
22
doing
not adequately
20
passed no longer
general
have
been
Chief
relatively
in the
now
in
the proponent
had
of defense
lack
Your Honor
since
were
because
whole discussion
that
that
begins that
injury
attorney
They
11
on the fact
Honor
Your
is Chief Justice Roberts
way to the
by the
10
The difference
And so all
No
EASTMAN
decisions
these
when
or fully
the
defending
opinion because
are
a whole
slew
that
of
for example
legislatively
created
created
it's
legislatively
where
the separation
but
That's
24
issues come
in
25
legislature
says citizen
There
are
tons
of cases
of powers
where the
lawsuits the consumer
protection
APP
27
27
2
3
But when
MR
5
6
Oregon
such
10
EASTMAN
And
Given
could
clear
11
think
the statutes
13
is that the particularized
14
for others who
15
to
16
that that
17
to
have
at least
18
them
Your
enough
question
The
have
20
there's
21
I do think
22
that
23
case
24
and
25
unprofessional conduct
was
standing
Supreme
create
if
it
Court's
we are saying here
law
clerk
in this
standing
to
state
you
be able
to
discretion
the same
not meant
and
know
intervene
is
on the
earlier on the
the only
issue where
timeliness question
as part of the discretionary judgment
seeking
in
injuries that are going
you mentioned
it
law
authorized has to be
discretion One of the
great
the
raise some objection
Honor
19
of
the
in the
be able to
And
if
here
not create
particularized
from a change
gives
know
the law does
injury
12 permitted under the Constitution What
flow
don't
them
create
that
on
So what
is
grounds

very
Branch
the duties that
of particularized
the statutes
lawsuits
citizen
to create
authority
on county clerks
an interest
been
creates
does the Judicial
has the
bestows
the law
I mean the question
I don't
And
4 Judicial Branch
law
the environmental
all
relief
taking
makes
as a claim that
but
the same
this
the fact
side of the
by definition
there's any
by definition
But
collusion
is
APP 28
28
when
admitting
you take
things
3
4
THE
collusion
chose
have
on a legal
That's
Don't
because
together
not
topic I mean
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
12
MR
EASTMAN
13
THE
COURT
on
honor
have
it
would
that
word I
15
bad
don't
choice
of
MR
16
17
factual
18
the
19
adversarial
that's the
that the
happened
import
of
You
parties
to
agree
that
word
a middle point Your Honor
There's
You should
have
a different
chosen
law
want
The middle point
You should
EASTMAN
When
problem
somebody
with
was
makes a concession
on
not warranted in
both parties not being
in the case
THE
COURT Okay
21
MR
EASTMAN All right And
22
THE
COURT
That
was
the
argument
that Thomas
made
in his dissent
MR
24
was
whether
unprofessionalism
suggested
or on legal claims that are
you have
a different
chosen
to hear about a middle point It
words It
claims
have
20
25
Mr Eastman
suggest
they just
of
word
14
23
are
it
10
11
not the definition
let's
MR
you
that
COURT
collusion
gotten
side of the case and
the same
EASTMAN
they
had
Well but again the

the California
issue there
Supreme Court had
APP
29
29
said they have
standing
of the
whether
are
entirely different
state Right
they had
making
The
particularized
Hollingsworth is
they did make
what Chief Justice
11
Chief
12
generalized
13
reasons why we have
14
was
Justice
one
Roberts
the
backers
18
claim
19
it's
20
hypothetical
21
African American
my law
How
EASTMAN
is
the
They
Let's
suppose
23
district wide
24
The
city
their electoral
sues
about
voter
didn't
attorney
alleging
that
three
not
claimed
didn't
is a
different
county
than
case
a vote dilution
make
again
maybe
me make a
a city in Alabama
majority decides
at wide
district
like
the effort
clerk
well
any different
but let
doesn't
in
the
was
they
here is
in a
to
is
claiming here
got
system from an
citywide
we
about
They
injury The
majority temporary
change
that
professor background
22
but
make
are important as
I think the argument
And
somebody
have
the others
of the initiative
MR
17
you are
we
talking
didn't
brief
particularized
COURT
is
injury that
said all
injury I think
THE
They
Roberts was talking
but I think
15
injury which is what
Roberts
case
had a particularized
that they
the point on
cases
claim in their
10
the interests
on the agency
an agency
the
represent
did not make
particularized
25
They
they
And what Chief Justice
16
because
to
to
election
that
an
system
move
make
that
And so
change
APP 30
30
in the law
was
benefiting
a particular
concedes
that
designed
point
for the explicit purpose
race
in the
And
answer
sets up a summary judgment
then
negates
the
effect
That
of
would be a vote
dilution
generalized
to
claim
complaint That
the
election
case
negation
in favor of that
even
though
cases
generalized
the
nothing
But
in the Supreme
every
But because
and not have
it
one
of
taken
front end from casting
back
end
have
those claims
by conduct
And
particularized
way
back
Every
one
to
that
that's
why
the
thing
Court's
could
have
are
away
it
of those
in that
its
it
from those
particularized
in standing
recognized
COURT Okay
in those
Ms
have
cases
dilution
all
about
Court has
cases
Potter do you want
the
cases
injury not a
and yet the Supreme
standing
on the
that you
the voters here
generalized
you on
effect
in the way we normally talk
one
sense
of the right to
negates
vote
in
of vote
either by blocking
Sims on those
involved
is
or negating
think
decision
history
importance
Reynolds
THE
of them
effectively
particularized
routinely
and every
their interests
Hollingsworth that throws out that entire
vote
completely
to that extent
There's
dilution
attorney
motion that
that citywide
African American who voted

a vote
the city
of
to
APP
31
31
to that
respond
MS
Just on
votes
their votes
It's
counted
being enforced
There's
and the
what
here
Mr
12
is relevant
13
articulating
to
15
analysis
16
she determined was
17
and Oregon
18
of
the law
is that
of
general
and
for Measure
law
36 had
law
is
It
the
today
that
is
any of their votes

just
not comparable
injury that is
lawsuit
he believes
What
were
articulating the legal

one
that
he is
done
to
the
in an independent
engaging
the correct
to
the injury that
this
is an injury that
by the attorney
sense of course
36 became
hypothetical
the subject
you
Thank
voted
is discussing is not the
Eastman
14 voters
position
on the basis of
that
federal
law
That's
19
injury appears
20
and
21
on the
22
There
23
lawsuit which
24
civil
25
Measure
The other thing
11
who
no basis to say
were diluted
10
People
right now
happened
Honor
Your
in the immediate
diluted
weren't
Yes
POTTER
not the subject
to be this
the attorney
general
legal question
isn't
reached
that
that
the same
is the
is a question
subject
voters
Hard one
lawsuit
The
the plaintiffs
legal conclusion
of
this lawsuit
on the subject
of whether
COURT
this
the fact
an injury to the
THE
of
of
this
the plaintiffs
by Oregon
to explain
law
to
voters
but
all
APP
32
32
right
Mr
3
to if
Johnson any
you don't
MR
have
would like to
the
Supreme Court's
say
that
the individual
individual
the
make
the court cited
11
court
12
Diamond
13
holding
And
not
case
15
number
OB GYN's
16
to defend
17
abortion somebody who had
18
that statute similar to
19
consistent
20
what
the court
21
that
they
22
law
23
there are fewer
24
So they
25
forth and
because
had
came
to
law And a
Measure
they
both
people
have
Perry and
in their
or the
holding
in its
Karcher
case
opinion
in its
outlawing
challenge
but the
cited
the
an economic
said well
then
an economic
this kind of
to
would
to intervene
person
am a pediatrician
there will
with
say
And
also indicated
interest consistent
with the
and
if
be more patients
interest that they
value interest
declined
consistent
that people
attempted
and that
state
objector
value interests
36
abortions
and the
person
that a
abortion
conscientious
the views
said was
there was a particular
criminal statute
had
the
point
case
There was
with
need
trying to minimize
might have
reasoning and
in that
that
only other
Hollingsworth
mentioned
14
of
the
considering
person
you
Charles
Honor
in
You don't
add
that voters might
that
in its
to
that
on
is that in terms of
views
10
Your
court was
views
also
anything
JOHNSON
comment
were
putting
APP 33
33
And the
come
chooses
not
want
enforced
in and
it
the
dismissed
the
to enforce
side
that
about
this law
said you
when
in the way
case
that
and
of the state
the court and Justice
Perry talked
can't
the state
that you would
Roberts
in Hollingsworth
case is inherent
That
in
ruling
court's
8
9
represent
And
court
COURT Okay I'd ask
THE
you to respond
to this
statement
10
prime purpose
11
ensure
12
upon
13
preference
14
vigorous
litigation
yet the court insists
conducted
by state
is to lose the
15
but it
certainly
16
17
be
18
as opposed
reference
What
20
MR
what
JOHNSON
not going to
be too roundabout
22
of a history
lesson
here
on
are
that should
decision
making
that
but I
came into this
plaintiffs
we
25
plaintiffs
and we brought
improves
answer
will
in terms of this
24
were
the intervenors
I think I will
21
we
Thomas's dissent
is something
are your thoughts
So when
whose
it
hinders
19
23
officials
case
that improves the system and

to
is to
advocacy
granted that is in Justice
And
does
of justiciability
couple
months
our case
case
I am
that
give
little
case
the Rummell
behind
knowing
the Geiger
that
that
bit
APP
34
34
there was
an answer in the
answer attached
Jordan
And
the
so we
that point
would
I have
that That was obvious
when
we came
be potentially
been
bit
on the other
Deputy
not
were
Michael
was
lawsuit
different
side
Attorney
that
it
into this
already and that
case
the memo from then
3 Mary Williams to Michael

4
Geiger
of
clear
DOJ
And
10
in January And then after that we inserted
11
asked
12
scheduling
13
date
14
Hollingsworth
15
okay
we
did
17
assert certain
18
want
19
the
20
date
came
21
this
is
so we
where
knew
record
with
interests
went
But
the thought
we recognize
23 terms of the fact

24
the same
25
to be defended
at these
a situation
in the way
that
was that
a bit
the
that
doesn't
issues and
where
at
said
the court
may
not
that some people would
So let's
date
And
yes
Your
propose
that
change
that
experience
out there
the law
to
amicus
Honor
is not defending
that some organizations

but
here
of a different
state
an amicus
where the state
situation
be an amicus
and
court
at that time We looked
to be asserted
that there
here
into that
consideration
We looked
to have
interests
way
cases
the
we inserted
the research
Perry
we are going
court
and
order for the court's
16 might be confronted
22
order
for a scheduling
those
case
we had the hearing for the consolidation
And
because
us at
that this
was in the court
That
Jordan
to
from other
the
General
the
in
law
might want
in
it
in terms of
APP
35
35
whether
or not
2
3
they
have
here
THE
COURT Okay
MS
POTTER
Ms Potter
on that
anything
issue
4
5
state
has advised
state
has certainly
in other cases around
all
defending
those
cases
if
assist the court
11
arguments
12
opportunity
13
We
laid
the
country
briefings
if
to
15
16
with
17
presenting because
18
those
19
objection
20
receive
21
of
questions
court
We
the
we analyzed them and
to the court deciding
have
the
23
distinction
24
has suggested
25
And the
that
it
wants
think
it
really gets
between
that
problem
is
advocacy
it
wants
it
is not
to
to
those
has that
of
briefing
this
those
not
arguments
the state
is not
determined that
don't
have
an
would like to
NOM
the court to
and
are
receive
law we
that it
made
attempted
court
a late filed amicus brief in which
And I
that
simply to make
that
been
has available
that are part
and conviction
the
the
have
by laying out
them So
not a basis to uphold
the arguments
22
that
The
only
hear the
the court wishes to
from NOM on the legal
were
Not
by defendants
decision
14
of vigor
to
bans vigorously
and responding
a level
Honor
out arguments
the
in its
also
Your
the court wants
their state
10
Yes
can
make
consider
this gets to
the
being an adversary
and
play an adversarial
an adversary
to
all
NOM
role
the plaintiffs
APP 36
36
here
nor are its
members because
could order NOM
that the plaintiffs
to
do would
who are in
defend
adversarial
brief if
don't
the
state
law
court
that this
effect
court
on the relief
seeking
an adversary The parties

do something
and
to
in the case already That's the
are
advocacy
wants
to
can
be handled
accept
by an amicus
late filed brief We
to that
an objection
COURT Okay
10
THE
11
MR EASTMAN
12
isn't
any
to be ordered to
role The
the
have
NOM
position
have
are actually
So legally
nothing
Your
Honor
I address that
can
point
14
probably
those
15
if
to make
16
respond
17
to consider
you want
Yes
COURT
THE
13
are really the
a general
and anything
now would
said repeatedly that the
20
law
21
necessary
22
Justice
23
are
24
least two of the plaintiffs
25
Canada and are
that
and
under
if
state
your briefs you want
defendants
Windsor was enough
only enforcing
opinion
half
seeking
of
are
to
law
With
those who
have
me
enforcing
to create
accurate
respect
were
the
the
according
But that's not

the
me
on this both parties have
adversarialness for jurisdiction
Kennedy's
So
you want to
time to convince
You know
I am
of my questions
heart
statement
be the
19
Mr Eastman
think
else outside of
MR EASTMAN
18
And I
to
They
to at
married out in
the
APP
37
37
day after the
lawsuit
filed
was
are not going to enforce
we
adopted
the
regulations
in this
the attorney
that
and they
state
not
general
have
enforcing
said
actually
now
that part of
law
least on that
So at
not a defense
either
of
the law but
I do think
And
adversarialness
even
part of
it
there is
not an enforcement
that
creates
under
Justice
of
not only
the law
real problem for
Kennedy's
Windsor
opinion
an easy way out of that according
There's
sic
Wright
case where
rights that
otherwise
affected
regime that they
requested
name
We
those
Any
to
who are
have
that
result may be saved
affected
be adversely
going to
have
to
operate under
if
it
clerk
dilution
a
who
could
might
are
claim
different
or
legal
as a result of
there's
intervene
that
adversary who represents the
are rights that
them intervening
THE
same
rights of a county
one of them
believe
organization
to
easy qualification is
or voters on a vote
injunction
statewide
might
we have
providers
affected
a genuine
of
So if
wedding
The
the parties desire the
by intervention
adversely
Miller
and
to
a
have
be adversely
intervene
on their own
clear authority
for us as an
on their behalf given the hurdles
themselves
COURT Okay
APP 38
38
Anything
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
want
me to
No
Honor
Your
Anything
from the
other
parties
you
outside your briefing
consider
MR
else outside your briefs
JOHNSON
Honor
Your
could
talk
about
the
COURT You
THE
think
notes
of
have
and
MR
that
12
complete
one
of
JOHNSON
The
the factors
if
only thing I
in timeliness
THE
COURT
14
MR
JOHNSON
16
proceedings
17
the reason
stage
18
point I
19
before
20
that
21
applicable You know
22
of
am not
going
is
then the
the proceedings
23
And
for the
Your Honor
have
25
longer
involved
and
cases
make
delay
it
on both
it's
in this
been
obviously
and
again
sides
really the
is
in the
stage
of
the
the prejudice
we
made the
about
38 hours
was
heard
and
all
were frankly
question
of
the
of
not
stage
case
involved
many
The
the proceedings
of
to
prongs
three
I am sure that we all
24
add
court
the motion for summary judgment

And
to
there's
On the
wanted
Yes
13
for timeliness
here in my
to the timing
discretion of the district
15
new I
there's something
put together a list
have
findings with regard
10
11
can
all
in cases
depositions
that
the
lawyers and
went
and that
on for much
kind
of
thing
APP 39
39
That's
not this
But
what
stage
at
kinds
if
of
the court
proceedings
of
cases
all
if
decided
Honor
you
the
look
9 them that have
cases
and
you look
been
at
to to
determine the
13 have
cases
there are
And
been
here
we are seeking
that
to look
postWindsor
think
see okay well
Your Honor
filed
now
those
decided
this
urge
been
Your
number
of
the same
case
11
So in terms of the stage of the proceedings we
12
believe
13
in Virginia was
14
The
15
decided
in
16
brought
in December
17
have
in the direction
but if
to look to
we would
that
at those
all
were
could I compare
cases
of the
10
case
that
Beshear case
February
months The
De
that
the Bostic
brought in July and
sic
Love
late
they are
The
and
Lee
was
decided
THE
COURT
19
MR
JOHNSON
in February
was
in February That's three
decided
in December
case
Which
The
Lee
was
that I
Orr case
and decided
21
De Leon
22
decided
23
Idaho
24
ban
25
yesterday The motion for summary judgment
Perry case in Texas
in February
District Court
was
four
struck
brought
am
sorry
in Illinois
was
February three months The
brought
case
case
brought in July and
20
That
Rainey
Leon
18
was
months
down
brought in October
just yesterday the
And
that
and
state's
in November
and
gay marriage
decided
in that
case
was
APP
40
40
filed
our motion
the same day we filed
THE
COURT Okay Timing
MR
EASTMAN
Mr
Eastman if
you
to
want
4
5
this point
directOr
January
the
exhibits
is the
25th
think
one thing not in our brief on
a little
it's
of
back
early to
36
Measure
executive
here
for the plaintiffs
state's defense
on
characterize
is in one of the
This
attached
the state
The
statement by the ACLU's
counsel
I think
we
will
responds
to
our own motions for summary
10
11
18th
on February
I think
13
And what happened
14
those legal
15
abandoned
16
appeal
arguments
we
learned
clear
picture
until
judgment
true
12
that's
not have
were
since
or
then
we
learned
that
what
that there was not going to
be an
taken
17
And quite
18
its
own to
19
members who
20
themselves
21
diligent
22
intervene
until
it
became
had this
NAACP
Alabama
That
not
did
happen
in trying to pull that
THE
clear
that it
hurdle
overnight
standing
a brief recess
24
think
25
am going
maybe five
to intervening
but
we
were
together
minutes
and
go over my
to take
notes I
am prepared to issue a ruling on intervention

to
take
let's
take
on
had
COURT Okay All right I am going
23
frankly NOM did not have
a five minute recess
So I
APP
41
41
Recess
notice
filed
of request
by the
being
asked
notice
8 have
9
of
both
the
contributed
regarding
recusal
hard
time understanding
there's
facts
some to
finding
12
would
13
finding
under
hasn't
You
14
been
know
a legal basis for
16
discovery
17
my mouth
18
explaining
of
it
waiver
15
would
was
was
I may
and
of the facts
back
there's
quite
nonparty
20
were raised in the
21
think
22nd
an advocacy
case A
don't
group
of clarify
think
a party to
22nd On
attended
Despite being gay and
gay
did open
any problem
was
to
raised
begin
the
a rally
recall
supports
have
it
there's
some of the issues that
And I want
I cannot
that
don't
to you because
notice
never
statement
24
or maybe even
so I
for recusal that
judge on an issue of recusal but
some of this
23
455 a
made a
made
up on January
22 marriage I have
be
never
parties to the
by the
So let me kind
public
that
in the
case
and the law in the

misunderstanding
Section
warrant
19
the
what
misunderstanding
So I want to clarify that I have
11
filing
address a
to
22nd
on January
10
25
want
intervenor
little
think
did
for information
proposed
I had
5
6
COURT I
THE
by
issue of gay
I have never
having donated
made
money to
marriage
involved
in the
law
the
APP
42
42
subject
interest to
not read the entirety of the
the dissent
opinion And I know
would
of
gay marriage has held
me
and
receive
of
is
was that I do try my
generally
Oregon
10
that
11
are
12
basis upon
could
made
come
to
14
marriage and where
15
subject to
16
Mass
17
to read political
18
to
19
marriage
20
Another
on matters
me
probably
it
has
are
times when
of others
reasonably
been
the speakers I didn't know
24
moved
25
was
be questioned
same sex
I am
the times I attend

efforts
to legalize
at the law
Ms
I believe it's
when
are not the
common for a priest
very
example that I raised at

attended
of
is
comments
become
condemning
23
approved
discussions
has actually
raised it
Eugene
There
comments
22
because
22nd
political
statements
CLE I
case
avoid
hearing
this
which
21
to
was
of
in a small community
years it
the congregation
benefit
best
examples on an issue
it
comments
or financial
on the outcome
impartiality can
So to give
in recent
no personal
but inadvertent
13
had
I had read
I tried to discuss on January
before
which
none
case I
this
decision
Windsor
dependent
think
legal or personal
assigned to
had read
that
What
I was
Until
little
Ms
my clerks
the January
school
Middleton
Middleton
and
State
22nd
And I
was one
I was
I attended
for credit by the Oregon
gay
the
of
just
CLE
Bar It
was
It
APP 43
43
sponsored
Oregon
by the
School
3
Windsor
generally it
face
holding
the
trying to
end
made
the very
ballot initiative
to
11
because
12
campaign
volunteer
we
somebody
to
14
talking
15
questions
16
and
that if
about
The
and
up
was
18
19
plaintiffs
with
20
child It's
true T
guess
21
anyone
the age
of
22
Mr
Eastman
23
you
know
24
age I believe
25
well I am
in that
people
clerks
and
kind
I left
political
of events that
of
and
they
been addressed
at
the fact
both
by the
that
least the male
I am gay and raising a
think
they
or close
have
male
are
to
it
worked
am
them
we do share characteristics
35
we
had
To
would say that
share more personal characteristics
white
at
asking
part of
guess
And
spoke
the media is
with
in this case
We
practitioners
of a
willing to share
repeatedly
53
of
I said what
where
people were aware
notice
we are
My
are the
other issue that's
and I
ACLU
in favor
marriage
sign
17
under
that
I guess those
about
of
on the history
difficulty
did not want to become
And
13
the
like to be campaigned
redefining
stay
a lecture
and this is
is I don't
end
or University
clients
advise
me nervous
of Law
was
and the
At the very
10
School
of
And
Oregon
we are exactly
think
we
are
our
whole
life
So
the same
both
in the
law
APP 44
44
We
public
have
both
defender
I know
But the
characteristics
the
years
cases I
have
of
prison
10
time
me to
that
we
cases
So to
if
13
certainly
14
of
know as a
to sometimes take
on
their families throughout

on family law
very
haven't
share
in front of me all
gay men appear
people with
and
like
you
cases
the
on civil
similar characteristics
given a thought
to the fact
have
12
it's
both
that the plaintiffs
sometimes with
sent
have
sometimes setting
me
with
We
what
fact
on criminal
11
the posture
me
of
in this case it's

changed
the case
understand
my ongoing
irrelevant
Certainly
I would certainly
duty as a judge
to be aware
any possible conflict
So I did want to address
15
16
advocates
been
that because
it
was
raised by notice
17
With
18
leave
19
deny
you all
regard
hanging
intervention
20
and
Federal Rule
to
here
of
court
22
nonparty
23
right or by permission of
24
proposed
25
requirement
my just
is
Civil
bench
Procedure
opinion
24 allows the
circumstances to permit intervention
in ongoing
intervenor
under
a big surprise I am going to
with
21
in certain
intervention I am not going to
litigation
the
Intervention
court
The
to demonstrate that it
rule
can
burden
of a
be of
is on the
meets the
APP
45
45
The
whether
guided
Circuit has held
intervention
by practical
The
appropriate
is
and
am going
to
focus
intervention
significant
property
two
application
a
on the first
or the
protectable
transaction
in determining
should be
considerations
equitable
parties seeking
that
the court
24
a four part showing under Rule
make
has
Ninth
by right must
Of the four
prongs
Whether
the proposed
interest
that is
relating
the subject
the
intervenor
to the
of
this
action
Intervention
with
the
this
court
the proposed
or
grounds
and the
intervenor
for federal
discretionary
for consideration
must satisfy a
timely that it
jurisdiction its
has
claim
main action share a common question
of
fact
So the threshold
court makes the

The
and
is
to allow
showing that the motion is
an independent
or defense
24 b
Rule
court Nonetheless
three prong
law
under
following
is
timeliness and the
findings
Geiger plaintiffs
Geiger Nelson Duehmig
Greisar Greesar Greisar
Greisar
MR
PERRIGUEY
THE
COURT Greisar Thank
Brought
challenging
question
Greisar
this action
the definition of
you Sorry
on October
15th 2013
marriage found
in the Oregon
of
APP
46
46
Constitution
and
The
West
the Oregon
statutes
plaintiffs
Rummell
which
Chickadonz
MR
ISAAK Chickadonz
MR
JOHNSON
THE
COURT
action
identical
on December
to
9
10
the
The
2014 At
11 would
Rummell
include
the
Chickadonz
Chickadonz
19th 2013
Geiger
summary
13
for April
time
judgment The
14
be
16
hearing
under
the
their
were
22nd
on January
parties agreed
that this matter
for dispositive
ruling on
motion hearing
and
on the matter and

plaintiffs
19
plaintiffs
20
summary judgment
was
The
filed
set
on March
22
General
Rosenblum
23
took
24
couples
from marriage
25
October
of 2013
to
final
matter
on the
That's
plaintiffs
the
Geiger
filed their motions
for
4th 2014
ever
being
filed
in an amicus brief to the
position
going
18th 2014
Rummell
was
the dispositive
only hearing
Prior to this case
a clear
I agree That
the case posture
18
21
challenges
the cases
dispositive
that was
this
The
17
filed
23rd 2014
And
15
Their
court consolidated
same
Tanner
plaintiffs
be submitted to the court
12
and
that quote
Attorney
Ninth
The exclusion
is unconstitutional
This
Circuit
of same
sex
occurred
in
APP
47
47
20th 2014
On February
answer
announced
Oregon
appellate
to the
complaint Attorney
Rummell
publicly
marriage
that
laws
the
based
state
That
day
same
National
Attorney General
constitutional
the proposed
Rosenblum
the
13
defend
duty
intervenor
attorney
closed
was
general
to
the Constitution
14
Defendants
uphold
recent
March
18th 2014
17
the position that plaintiffs
18
should be granted because
19
Oregon's marriage laws
20
one woman could no longer
21
constitutional
counsel
for the Oregon

their oath
of
22
decisions
to summary judgment
their response
governor and
and
the
the defendants
motions on
defendants
believed
marriage to one
pass scrutiny under
1st 2014
Woodward
took
restricting

On April
her
for
office
and
analYsis put forth in recent
By April
the
that quote
announced
Kitzhaber Rosenblum
16
25
of
of Oregon
their response
In
intervenor
25th 2014
calling
filed
24
not be defending the
quote
15
23
Rosenblum
As early as January
12
General
on their interpretation
for Marriage
Organization
10
proposed
would
filed their
decisions
11
having just
this
court
that
man
and
the federal
appellate
had received
amicus
groups
21st 2014 so
just two days prior to
our
APP
48
48
motion hearing
dispositive
intervenor
conferred
intervention
with
counsel
for the
plaintiffs
and delaying the
proposed
counsel
April 23rd
regarding
summary judgment
hearing
pm
11 04
At
motion to
delay
was
the
issue
reason
sooner
dispositive
was
set
That
filed
motion was
for today to
take
to
than
intervenor
has provided
notify the court

the
40 hour
no credible
of its
windrow
intent
to
prior to the
motion hearing
The
of the
proposed
for failing
intervene
argument
hearing
intervenor
intervention
of
The
the proposed
April 23rd
denied as untimely and

up the
filed
22nd 2014
On April
of April 21st 2014
on the evening
proposed
attorney
intervenor
general's
had
position two
clear
months
understanding
prior to
the
April 23rd hearing

The
reason
its
proposed
for failing
organization
to
intervenor
has submitted
determine whether
had significant
any Oregon
and protectable
member of
interests
ago
until as
they
their own
Oregon
stated
in their
brief
no credible
only
days
By
members
Proposed
intervenor
chose
not
to file
an amicus
or even
a simple
APP
49
49
notice
to
2
3
the court as to
their intent
So I
am finding
With
regard
untimely
has
intervenor
unidentified
county
intervenor
this
to intervention
among
worker
clerk
and
its
the
proposed
100 members an
in the wedding
have
right
of
approximately
an unidentified
submits
voter that the proposed
significant
protectable
interests
in
case
10
The
court
and the
the degree
determine
12
because
13
their identities
And I
14
genuine
concern
15
have
16
regarding
17
declarations
18
proposed
19
by the
20
anything
21
intervenor
the
proposed
issues of
But
of
intervenor
protective
has chosen
that
One
to disclose
are I think
intervenor
orders or requesting to
may
file
discussions the
than
conclusory
of the
proposed
23
24
the outcome
of
25
significant
protectable
interest
a dialogue with the court
parties and by the court

other
not
the proposed
seal or in camera
intervenor
parties are unable to
understand there
rather than hold
under
existing
the members protectable
11
22
is
case
36 in
to ascertain
statements
members is
2004
The
is of a general
interest
of
standing
the proposed
voter who voted
voters
interest
that would
on
interest
and not a
allow for
in
APP
50
50
intervention
2
One of
as
in a county in Oregon
clerk
appearing
particular
in an official
capacity
county or local
The proposed
proposed
information
as to
what
in this litigation
other
religious objection
11
grievance
12
It
than
Such
no matter how
is not at
13
to
issue
a wedding
15
religious objection
16
what service
service provider
not
of any
little
protectable
generalized
does
interest is
may be required
a moral or
hypothetical
not confer
standing
case
intervenors
who
members works
also has a general
same sex marriage
the member
The
1.7
to
provided
might have
One of the proposed
14
has
that he or she
sincere
in this
is
as a representative
clerk's
9 to perform a job duty that they

10
clerk
works
government
intervenor
the
The
who
It
is
as
moral or
unclear
provides
case here is
about
marriage I
know
18
Mr
Eastman you have tried to clarify this in your brief
19
but
this case
is
not about who
20 married many couples
over
Hawaii
they
fly
22
town
take
their formal vows
23
there
24 to
25
to
in Oregon
and
cake I
versa
vice
couples
get married and yet they come

here
eat
have
off
to
or their parents
to their hometown
are I assume same sex
ceremonies
to
the years in Oregon who fly
21
off
gets
who
here to
I mean
go to Washington
take
their vows and
APP
51
51
Nothing
a ruling I make is going
about
to
change
that
laws that
forbid businesses from discriminating against
consumers
based on sexual orientation The
is
Nothing
about
a ruling I make will
change
the
harm
Oregon
such as it
already exists
Discretionary
The
intervention
marriage
proposed
intervention
intervenor
in order to
laws quote
not
is
the defense
that the government
raising
11
of the
12
of government is not willing to defend
13
Branch believes
14
it
day is
that
15
The
DC
16
Washington
17
and I
18
it's
19
lobbying
20
I want
21
approximately a 100
22
a representative
fact
the Executive
focus
24
answerable
to
obviously
as
on that
25
directors of
the
the
Executive
Branch
the law the Executive
then
someone has to do
for Marriage is a
am just stating
the
well
members
ACLU
but
because
I
is
what
a
and
think
political
in terms of
intervention

am not
finding
that
that
is
is
number of Oregonians
More significantly
23
should be
lobbying organization
political
I mean
organization
to
itself
argument at the end
if
Organization
based
mean
to Oregon
us
National
am not
The
is unconstitutional
should be
it
closed
quote
10
and
but
provide
seeks discretionary
electorate
the Executive
of Oregon
the National Organization
Mr
Branch
is
Eastman
and the
for Marriage are
not
APP
52
52
would be remarkable
It
Hollingsworth
Executive
organization
the
opinion for
Branch
of
government
of
This is an Oregon
citizens
Oregon
going
political
to
court to
simply because
Its
10
I know
private
official
case
elected
that impacts
timeliness and
its
with
the lives of
posture
are
not
of a
by the intervention
group
that
many
Oregonians
12
but I
13
with
a third party And it's
14
It's
hard
15
members given the posture
by the lack
am not prepared
to
are probably
of adversarial
substitute
to
they
an Oregon
some
have
case
debate
degree
idea
Branch
phantoms
of these
been presented
It
will
case
in this
the Executive
for me to really get a clear
So it's
interest
Oregon's
disappointed
17
substitute the
disagrees
11
16
with
the
the organization
be held in abeyance
lobbying
following
harmed
in
remain an Oregon
case
18
The
19
Mr Eastman
20
appreciate
21
know
motion to intervene
I do appreciate
your briefing You
thank
is denied
your arguments I
are a smart
guy
and
you
you
right
22
All
23
MR EASTMAN
24
THE
25
MR EASTMAN
COURT
Your
Honor if
I may
Yes
because
we
need
to
request
APP 53
53
stay
and we'd
This
is
like a stay pending
THE
Okay
MR
JOHNSON
THE
COURT
MR
JOHNSON
order
an immediately appealable
COURT
The
appeal
stay
will
Honor
Your
your
be
denied
make
one
comment
Yes
in terms of your factual
findings
10
Geiger
believe that the
plaintiffs
11
brought
their motion for summary judgment in
12
amended
their memo on February
13

I
14
15
the
16
motion
date
think
THE
that I
correcting
19
quickly Okay
MR
factual
county
COURT
18
20
the March
that the
17
21
know
order
of
may I
as you
and
January
They
we also filed our
on February
18th
4th date
March
4th date
is
You
was
18th
originally
are correct
scribbling
down
Thank
a
you for
lot
of
notes
PERRIGUEY Your Honor there was one other
issue
Yes
22
THE
COURT
23
MR
PERRIGUEY
24
order from Michael
25
plaintiffs
You
Jordan
mentioned
The
state
actually
the day after
the Rummell
the
issued
the
Geiger
plaintiffs
in your
APP
54
54
THE
COURT Aah Okay
MR
PERRIGUEY
modification
4
5
So that's just a slight
THE
that
you
Anything
All
right
Thank
you very
THE
CLERK
Court
is in recess
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will
allow
correction
else that I have
mistaken on my
much
The proceedings were concluded

14th day of
May 2014
this
dates
APP
55
55
I hereby certify that
the foregoing
correct
above
entitled matter to the best
dated
this
transcript
15th
day
of
of
the oral proceedings

of
is
my skill
May 2014
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sKristi L Anderson
true and
had in the
5
6
Realtime Reporter
and ability
APP
F ROSENBLUM
ELLEN
General of Oregon
Attorney
ANNA
56
M JOYCE
Solicitor General
MARY
H WILLIAMS
NE
General
1162 Court Street

Telephone 503 378 4402
Counsel for Defendants Appellants
John Kitzhaber Ellen Rosenblum Jennifer
IN
Woodward
Randy Waldruff


U S CA No 14 35427
WILLIAM GRIESAR PAUL

RUMMELL BENJAMIN WEST
CHICKADONZ CHRISTINE
TANNER BASIC RIGHTS
LISA
EDUCATION
FUND
Appellees
Plaintiffs
v
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
of
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
capacity
as Attorney
MOTION TO DISMISS
in his official
as Governor
Oregon
in her official
General of
Oregon JENNIFER
WOODWARD
in
her official capacity as State Registrar

Center for Health Statistics Oregon
Health Authority
WALDRUFF
Multnomah
RANDY
in his official
capacity
as
County Assessor
Defendants
Appellees
v
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
MARRIAGE INC
Proposed
Intervenor on behalf of their Oregon
Members
Movant
Page 1
Appellant
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJ blt 5316931

Department
of Justice
1162 Court Street

Salem
OR
730
971 673
NE
1 4096
11380
APP
State defendants
Woodward
Jennifer
Governor John Kitzhaber Ellen Rosenblum
move
hereby
appeal from the denial of
May 16 2014
57
to dismiss the appeal because it
for
Marriage Inc
NOM
filed
is
its
motion to intervene in the underlying
its
No 117
Ct Dkt
constitutionality of Oregon's ban
on
denied
denied a
this court
day the
district
same sex
stay
on
same sex
D Ct Dkt
May 19 2014
court issued
marriage Because
D Ct Dkt
judgment that day as well
appeal the
The
district
court's
litigation
Cir Dkt
9th
and
Nos 118 119
The
D Ct Dkt No 120
appeal
effective
moot where
relief
Beaumont 506
Page 2
there
can be granted
F3d
court
15
That same
Oregon's ban on
district
court entered
its
Defendants do not intend to
judgment
entry of the judgment
is
had
then sought and
No
declaring
enjoining
NOM
in the litigation
in
which
NOM
sought to
intervene renders their appeal of the denial of their motion to intervene
An
on
NOM's
the district
No 114 NOM
an opinion and order
maiTiage to be unconstitutional
from enforcing it
notice of
That litigation challenged the
protectable interest in the underlying
motion to intervene
its
moot
litigation
motion to intervene was both untimely and failed to demonstrate that
a significant
and
895 900
no
present
controversy
Outdoor Media
Group Inc
exists
9th Cir 2007
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJ blt 5316931

Department
1162 Court
Salem
of Justice
Street
NE
OR 97301 4096
971 673 1880
moot
as to which
internal citation
City of
omitted
APP
58
proposed intervenor has the right of appeal from the denial of
intervene but where the
and
litigation
issues final
appeal
intervenor's
district
judgment and no party appeals
moot
is
Res Def Council Inc 643

because no
States
v Ford
moot an appeal from
was
litigation
Here
dismiss
its
Moreover
that proposed
Cir 2011
9th
Ass n v
Natural
so holding That
F2d 1141
650
this
1143
motion
9th Cir 1981
to intervene because
is
See
dismissing as
the underlying
dismissed
the underlying
appeal as
701
the denial of a
voluntarily
Therefore because
the underlying
West Coast Seafood Processors
F3d
motion to
relief can be granted to the proposed intervenor
effective
also United
its
complete and no
litigation is
court can grant
NOM
no
appeal
party will
effective
relief
it
should
moot
the capable
of repetition
yet evading
review exception to the
mootness doctrine cannot apply here That doctrine applies only in
extraordinary cases
Cir 1999
bane
611
doctrine applies
whether
will
NOM's
The
This
Madison Sch Dist
capable
appeal from
it
is
No
321 177
F3d 789
798
9th
not the kind of extraordinary case in which the
is
not The Oregon ban on
Therefore
Page 3
Doe
of repetition part of the inquiry focuses
its
motion
same sex
to intervene is likely
marriage has been struck
highly unlikely that any further
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJ blt 5316931

Department
1162 Court
Salem
to occur
of Justice
NE
Street
OR 97301
4096
971 673 1880
litigation
on
again
down
over the validity of
It
APP
59
ban will occur again and no further opportunity
that
for
NOM
to intervene will
likely be presented
Finally to the extent that
litigation to argue
underlying
if
members who have a
litigation
and
in being able
they would
same sex
the
have Article
time
III
other voter in
Perry 133
Page 4
to appeal
it
has asserted that
when
to a
NOM
they have failed to
who may
not to
the
have a concern
make
any showing that
member who
2013
We
voted
seeking
challenge to
We
decline to
do so
of a state
for the first
to provide
to celebrate their marriage lacks
of that marriage
be asked to provide a license
to
5316931
Department
1162 Court
of Justice
Street
for the
have never before
wedding planner who may or may not be asked
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJ blt
on
2652 2668
state officials have chosen
same sex couple
the
has
it
court's order
the district
members of
Oregon and
S Ct
the
interest in the merits of the
standing to appeal The
to challenge the constitutionality
clerk
protected
the standing of a private party to defend
here A
services
has throughout
marriage ban has no greater interest in the constitutional
Hollingsworth
statute
it
have determined that they will not appeal
Oregon
marriages in
ban than any
upheld
NOM
to appeal
this court assumes that the three
same sex
about
continue as
that argument too fails
merits because the state defendants
Even
will
that its appeal should remain viable to permit
underlying litigation
three unidentified
NOM
NE
Salem OR 97301 4096

971 673 1880
The same
same sex
is
standing
true for a county
couple but
who
has
APP
60
only a personal and not an official objection to
wedding planner and
objections
may
the individual
who
marriage For both the
happens to be a county clerk
their
concerning whether they have a right to
lead to other litigation
not play a role in
same sex
same sex marriage
but they have
no connection
to plaintiffs
claims of a right to marry under the federal constitution
In short there is simply nothing left for this court to
NOM's
litigation has
concluded
and so
respect
to
motion to intervene The underlying
its
too
do with
must NOM's appeal
Respectfully
submitted
F ROSENBLUM
ELLEN
753239
Attorney General
s Anna
ANNA
Joyce
M JOYCE
Solicitor General
MARY
H WILLIAMS
Special
Assistant Attorney General

mary williamsmsn com
Attorneys for Defendants Appelleees

Jennifer
Page 5
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJ blt 5316931

Department
1162 Court
Salem
OR
of Justice
Street
730
NE
1 4096
971 673 1880
Woodward Randy
Waldruff
APP
61
I
hereby certify that on
be electronically
filed
May 20 2014
directed the
by
are registered
some of
CM ECF
the participants
have mailed the foregoing
prepaid or have dispatched
delivery within
calendar
users will
be served
it
Harris
Berne Christensen LLP
in the case are not registered
document by First Class Mail
to a third party commercial
days to the following
Roger
5000
who
CM ECF system
system
further certify that
CM ECF users
postage
in the case
CM ECF
the appellate
to Dismiss to
with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate
Participants
Motion
non CM ECF
carrier for
participants
Harris
SW
Meadows Road
Suite
400
Lake Oswego Oregon 97035
M
M JOYCE
s Anna
ANNA
Joyce
Solicitor General
MARY
H WILLIAMS
annajoyce doj state orus

mary williamsmsn com
Attorneys for Defendants Appelleees

Jennifer
Page 6
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJ b1t15316931
Department
of Justice
NE
OR 97301 4096
971 673 1880
1162 Court
Salem
Street
Woodward
Randy Waldruff
I certify that
on June
2 2014
I directed the original
Defendants in Opposition to Applicant's
both appendices via
e mail and
Clerk and to each of the
as
shown
in the attached
Motion
for
Response of
Stay Pending Appeal with
Federal Express overnight service to the Court
parties through their
counsel by
e mail and
U S Mail
service list
Respectfully
submitted
F ROSENBLUM
ELLEN
753239
Attorney General
ANNA
M JOYCE
MARY
013112
General
Solicitor
WILLIAMS
annajoyce doj state orus

mary williams msn com
Attorneys
for
Defendants

Jennifer
AMJ blt 5346230
Woodward
SERVICE LIST
Lea Ann Easton
881413
Kevin Diaz
Dorsay
LLP
ACLU
SW
Easton
Columbia
St
Suite 440
Telephone
PO
970480
Box 40585
503 790 9060
503 227 6928
Telephone
Email
Lake James
Perriguey
983213
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Rose Saxe
Amanda Goad
Madison
American
Street
Civil
Liberties
Union
Foundation
503 227 1928

Telephone
125 Broad
Street 18th Floor
New York NY 10004

Telephone 212 549 2627
Email
RSaxe aclu org
AGoad aclu org

Thomas
Misha
Johnson
NW
LLP
SW
5000
Couch 10th Floor
Telephone
K Harris
Roger
086430
Isaak
Perkins Coie
1120
010645
LLP
Meadows Road
Lake Oswego
OR
Suite
400
97035
503 968 1475

Telephone
503 727 2000
Email
trjohnson perkinscoie com
misaak perkinscoie
Jennifer Middleton
Johnson Johnson
975 Oak
corn
071510
Schaller
Street Suite
John
PC
1050
Eugene Oregon 97401

Telephone
541 683 2506
Email jmiddleton jj1slaw com
C Eastman
Center
for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Chapman
University Fowler School
Law
One
University
Orange
Dr
CA 92866
Telephone
877 855 3330
Email jeastman chapman edu
AMJ blt 5346230
of
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 2 2014 9 39 55
Subject
FW
Attachments
No A13
From
Sent
To
Steve Shapiro
Monday
Danny
Cc
Sheila
1173
Geiger et al
National Organization for MarriagevGeiger pdf
SSHAPIRO
mailto
AM
NOM
13A1173
No A13
1173
StatementofService
pdf
org
aclu
2014 9 26 AM
June 02
Bickell
chapman edu
jeastman
Katherine
von terstegg
Subject
RE 13A1173
Roger Harris
michael casper
co multnomah or us
Lea Ann Easton
NOM
Geiger
et
doj state or us
anna joyce
doj state or us
al
Danny
memorandum
Respondents
Hard copies are
a ached
conrm
receipt of this
Steven
National
in
opposi on to the applica on for a stay addressed to Jus ce
being sent to the Court and the pares by overnight
also
email
ma
Kennedy
il
in
d appreciate
the above case

if
is
you would
Thanks
Shapiro
Legal Director
New
125 Broad St
212 549 2611
www
This
York
NY
sshapiro
10004
aclu org
aclu org
message
reply email
may
that
From Danny
Sent
contain
Bickell
Thursday
Roger Harris
Cc
Steve Shapiro
that
has been
is
confidential
inadvertently
legally
to
privileged
you and
If
ou
delete th

is
email
from
your
recipient
please
immediately
advise
the
sender by
system
gov
2014 4 30 PM
michael casper
RE 13A1173
or
transmitted
supremecourt
mailto dbickell
May 29
To
Subject
information
message
this
NOM
doj state or us
Geiger
et
jeastman
chapman edu
al
Roger
Thank you
for
your email and voice mail
applica
on by 1 00 p
Danny
Bickell
From
Sent
To
Cc
Roger Harris
Thursday
Danny
Tuesday
mailto
May 29
roger
June 3
ce Kennedy has been no ed of your inte

rd
hbclawyers
com
2014 3 54 PM
Bickell
sshapiro
Subject
ET
Jus
aclu
org
RE 13A1173
michael casper
NOM
Geiger
et
doj state or us
al
jeastman
chapman edu
nt to le
a reply in support of your
Danny
This
mail is
up
follow
support of the pending
to
my
earlier
Application
responding submissions
for
1 00 p
voice mail that Applicant
Stay
We
Tuesday
will
do so
NOM
wishes to
not later than
rd
June 3 Thank you
for
reserve
24 hours
the right to
following
file
the deadline
your consideration
and
reply in
for
the
assistance
Roger K Harris P C
Attorneys
and Counselors
T 503 968 1475
5000
From Danny
Sent
To
28 May
sshapiro
Subject
D 503
F 503 968 2003
SW Meadows
Road
Bickell
Suite
400
596 2910
hbclawyers
Lake Oswego
mailto dbickell
com
Bio
vCard
OR 97035
supremecourt
gov
2014 12 16 PM
aclu
13A1173
org
michael casper
NOM
Geiger
et
doj state or us
Roger Harris
jeastman
chapman edu
al
Counsel
Jus
ce Kennedy has called for a response to the applica on for stay
Please feel free to contact
Thank you
Danny
Bickell
202 479 3024
me with
any ques ons
Responses are d
ue Monday June 2 2014 by 1pm ET
No A13 1173
In the
Supreme Court
NATIONAL
FOR MARRIAGE
ORGANIZATION
on behalf
of its
INC
Oregon members
Applicant
v
DEANNA
L GEIGER
JANINE
M NELSON
PAUL RUMMELL BENJAMIN WEST
LISA CHICKADONZ CHRISTINE
TANNER and
FUND
Respondents
Plaintiffs
and
JOHN KITZHABER in
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
JENNIFER
WOODWARD
his official capacity

in her official
Statistics
RANDY WALRUFF
capacity
as Governor
of
Oregon
as Attorney General of Oregon

as State Registrar Center for Health
as Multnomah
County Assessor
Respondents
Defendants
Response In Opposition to Application to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal

Steven
R Shapiro
Counsel of Record
D Esseks
A Saxe
Amanda C Goad
James
Rose
Thomas
Johnson
Misha Isaak
PERKINS COIE LLP
1120 NW Couch Street 10th
Portland OR 97209
Lea Ann Easton

DORSAY
EASTON LLP
1
Floor
Kevin Daz
OR
97204
Lake James
H Perriguey
LAW WORKS
LLC
SW
Madison Street
Portland OR 97205
1906
Cooperating attorneys
FOUNDATION OF OREGON
Box 40585
Portland OR 97240
PO
Columbia Street
Portland
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION FOUNDATION
Jennifer Middleton
125 Broad Street 18th Floor JOHNSON JOHNSON
SCHALLER PC
New York NY 10004
212.549.2611
Eugene OR 97401
sshapiro aclu org
ACLU
SW
Suite 440
INC
on behalf
of
Foundation
the
of
Attorneys for Respondents
ACLU
Oregon Inc
Plaintiffs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
INTRODUCTION
ARGUMENT
NOMs
Application
Reasonable
Likelihood
Is
No
This Court Will Overturn the District
Courts Rulings
A
B
NOMs Motion
NOM
to Intervene
Was
Untimely
a Significantly Protectable
11
Interest in This Case
The
District
Court Correctly Rejected NOMs
for Discretionary
NOM
Merits Ruling Because
NOM
This Court
Equities
A
B
Were
Likelihood
to Review
the
of
Success
on
Judgment
NOM
Seeks To Litigate
Weigh Heavily
Will
The Harm
Not
19
Against Issuance
of
a Stay
23
a Stay
Would Cause
to
Plaintiffs
23
Far Outweighs
NOM
24
This Case Differs Significantly from Other Recent Cases

in
NOMs
21
Suffer Irreparable Injury Absent a Stay
Any Purported Harm
III
17
This Case Does Not Appropriately Present the Issues that
NOM
The
If
District Courts
Lacks Standing to Appeal
Cannot Show a Reasonable
the Merits
II
15
This Court Is Not Likely to Overturn the
Arguments
Intervention
Which Stays Have Been Issued
Application
Properly
Is Procedurally
Moved Below
26
Deficient
for the Relief It
Now
As
It
Never
Requests
of
This
27
Court
CONCLUSION
29
APPENDIX A
on Motion
to Intervene
May 14 2014
CASES
Alaniz
Tillie
Lewis Foods 572
F2d
9th Cir 1978
657
U S 531 1987
Arizonans
English v Arizona 520 U S 43 1997
Baker v Nelson 409 U S 810 1972
Brotherhood
R R Trainmen v Baltimore O R Co 331 U S 519
Amoco Prod
Co v
Vill
Of Gambell 480
24
16
for Official
of
Clapper
United States 483
DeBoer
Snyder 973
Charles
Donaldson
USA
Deaver
Diamond
Bruning 455
United
U S 1301
v Glickman
159
F3d 405
Sch
Gregory Portland Independent

Hall
Florida No
Heckler
Redbud
12 10882
Hospital
2014
Dist
Dist 473
Agency Review
In re Adoption of
Landis
Latta
Doe
Otter
WL
by statute on other
U S 310
1985
D Utah May
United States 448
U S 1308
11
11 12 13
2048343
19 2014
U S 1342
1980
May 27 2014
2178332
nom
2008
WL
5006172
9th
367
Dept of
Fla Cir Ct
v Means
Assn for Advancement
Human
Ark 55
26
21
1985
238
26 27
passim
2004
WL
Servs
S W 3d
1936
3154530
Child
1 2006
Nov 25 2008
21
20 21
22
26 27
Cir
F3d 1297 9th Cir 1997

300 F3d 1037 9th Cir 2002
McDonald
U S 345
sub
Bd v Howard
No 14 35420
Wilson 131
413
affd
N Am Co 299 U S 248
LULAC v
Natl
12 17
Kitchen 134
Ark Cir Ct Dec 29 2004

Welfare
20
United States 469
S Ct 893 Jan 6 2014

Hicks v Miranda 422 U S 332 1972
Hollingsworth v Perry 133 S Ct 2652 U S 2013
Howard v Child Welfare Agency Review Bd No 1999 9881
Herbert
19
1987
2014
WL
15
22
9th Cir 1998
v Utah No 2 14 CV55 DAK
Evans
1947
F3d 859 8th Cir 2006

S Ct 1138 2013
F Supp 2d 757 E D Mich 2014

476 U S 54 1986
States 400 U S 517 1971 superseded
grounds as noted in Tiffany Fine Arts

Donnelly
133
22
of Colored People
9
15
New York
4679
1973
ii
v Holder
Nken
556
U S 418
2009
23

Northwest Forest Resource Council
Perry
v Brown
671
F3d 1052
487
v Glickman
F Supp
Schwarzenegger 704
v Cox
82
F3d 323
F3d 825
ND Cal 2010
2d 921
6th Cir 2007
14
9th Cir 1996
12
affd
sub
9th Cir 2012 vacated and remanded sub
nom
Perry
nom
S Ct 2652 U S 2013
20
Tocher v City of Santa Ana 219 F 3d 1040 9th Cir 2000 abrogated by City of
Columbus v Ours Garage
Wrecker Serv Inc 536 U S 424 2002 and Tillison
Hollingsworth
City of
Perry 133
San Diego 406
United Airlines Inc
v McDonald
United States
United States
v Oregon
United States
United States
v Windsor
Winter
Yniguez
Blaine
432
745
F2d
86
Washington
133
550
Arizona 939
U S 385
1977
F Appx
7
9th Cir 2002
276
10
48
9th Cir 1984
F3d 1499
S Ct 2675
9th Cir 1996
17 21 22 25
2013
2d Cir 2012
9th Cir 2005
County Montana 37
U S 699 F3d 169
Windsor
F3d 1126
F2d 727
Inc
555
22
US 7
23 24
2008
Cir 1991
9th
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Brief of
Massachusetts California Connecticut
Illinois
Iowa Maine Maryland New Hampshire New
Vermont and Washington

Sandoval
Christian
No 12 17668
Mapes
9th Cir Dkt 24 Oct
Mexico
Columbia
New York Oregon
25 2013
File Suit Against Oregons
Ban on Gay
Dec 19 2013
Come by Summer
Jan 22 2014
Ruling on Gay Marriage Could
Consolidates
District of
as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants Sevcik
Gaston Two More Couples
Marriage Oregonian
Jeff
Delaware
Two Cases Oregonian
after Federal
Judge
RULES
Fed
Fed
Fed
Fed
Fed
R Civ P 24
R Civ P 24 a
R Civ P 24 a 2
R Civ P 24 b 1 B
R Civ P 24 b 3
Supreme Court Rule
4
4
4
4
47
23 3
1 27
iii
28
CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS
13
Oregon Constitution
89
iv
To
of the
Kennedy
Associate
Supreme Court
Justice of the
United States Court
for the
of
Appeals
for
the Ninth Circuit
Duehmig
William Griesar Paul
Christine
Tanner and
Organization
for
NOMs
denial of
Rights Education
Basic
motion
to stay
NOM
Marriage Inc
Janine
M Nelson Robert
oppose the application
respectfully
L Geiger
Deanna
Plaintiffs Respondents
Fund
collectively the
judgment
pending
Lisa Chickadonz
filed
its
Plaintiffs
by the National
appeal
of the district
courts
intervene
to
INTRODUCTION
On May 19
judgment and
enjoined as unconstitutional
from the freedom
have announced
case
2
was
District
Rummell
it
for
NOM
samesex
exclusion of
national
summary
same sex
Plaintiffs,
couples now seeks a stay
of oral
there
is
of the district
of its intervention
against
referred to the two sets of plaintiffs

All citations
First
no reasonable
herein to the district
to
likelihood that
common
as the
Geiger
Plaintiffs
court record will relate to
MC D Or
J
McShane on
May
14 ruled from the bench on the motion
argument NOMs stay application did not include a copy
required by Supreme Court Rule

hereto
below 2 and
two cases
respectively
couples
advocacy organization dedicated
pursues an appeal from the denial
court proceedings
Judge Michael
the conclusion
annexed
for
only parties with standing to appeal that decision
properly denied
no 6 13 cv 01834
District
not
will
court consolidated
district
defendants
and
they
Oregons
motions
This Court should deny that request for multiple reasons
intervention
The
marry The
judgment while
motion
to
marriage rights
opposing
courts
the district court granted Plaintiffs
as Appendix
23
Accordingly
a copy
of
of
the transcript of the
to
intervene at
that ruling as
May 14
hearing
is
four
members
of this
NOMs motion
Court
to intervene
will
grant certiorari to review that procedural ruling
was
correctly
deemed untimely and
this threshold
finding reviewed for abuse of discretion will almost certainly be affirmed
appeal therefore presents no substantial question
Second
NOM
the merits even
its
if
this case derived
a county
description
marriage provision
who works
in
weddings
a county
an
licenses
provider
clerk
citizen
to Oregons
unspecified
at
of
Oregon members
who
constitution
NOM
NOMs
judgment on
alleged interests in
identified only
it
nearly ten years
role in the private sector
13
courts
by general
voted in favor of adding the discriminatory
Significantly
clerk in his or her personal capacity
government
district
motion to intervene were granted
Application
12 20 23 Thus
for this Courts consideration
would lack standing to appeal the
from the interests
NOMs
NOM
only
ago and an
providing
services
acknowledges
App
does not speak for the clerk as
an
that
A Tr May
official
individual
for
it
represents
14 2014
at
of local
but merely as an individual with personal opinions about marriage
issued by the office where he or she
and Oregon
works
Similarly the wedding service
voter have opinions about marriage equality in Oregon
would have preferred that the
district courts order not take
effect
But
and
preferring
that a judicial decision not take effect does not constitute suffering legally
cognizable
harm
Third NOMs
moved
application
is
procedurally
and Ninth
deficient as
Circuit for the relief
Court
it
it
never properly
now
requests of this
The
circumstances
ever grant certiorari
and
of this case
thus render the Court extremely unlikely to
the equities weigh heavily against issuance
of
a stay
ARGUMENT
A
Circuit Justice evaluating
whether four Justices would vote
equities,
and
to give
case in this Court.
Heckler
Redbud
an
application
to grant certiorari to balance
some consideration
Deaver
Hospital
United States 483
Dist 473
1980 As
detailed herein
the
to
determine
socalled
as to predicting the final outcome
U S 1308
chambers and Gregory Portland Independent

1342 1342
for stay is required
NOMs
U S 1301
1302
1311 1312 1985
Sch
Dist
1987
stay
of the
quoting
US
United States 448
stay application
J in
Rehnquist
falls far short of
meeting this standard
NOMs
Application
Reasonable Likelihood This Court
Will
Overturn the
Is
No
District
Courts Rulings
NOM
courts
district
cannot show
May 14
it
is
reasonably likely to succeed
2014 decision denying
its
motion to intervene
interests warranting intervention
Further there
Court would overturn the merits decision in
lack standing to appeal that decision even
NOMs
In that decision the
court explained in detail its reasons for rejecting the belated intervention
attempt which included not only untimeliness but also
this
in appealing the district
if
merits arguments fail in any event
it
is
no
NOMs
failure to
reasonable
Plaintiffs
show
likelihood
favor since
NOM
that
would
were permitted to intervene and
NOMs Motion
to Intervene
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
intervention
putative
of the
under two
intervenor
action and
different
Was Untimely
24 allows
standards
Intervention
by timely motion claims an
is so situated
when
Advancement
24
consider
that its effort to enter the case
of Colored People
In exercising its discretion
whether the intervention
the original parties rights.
circumstances
NAACP
413
Cir 1984
of the
with
US
the putative
is
intervenor
of
law
413
at
365 66
will
timely Natl Assn
U S 345
365
for
1973 Fed
motion Fed
Civ
Civ
P
must
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication
to be
is
which the
see also
intervenor
as to permissive intervention the court
Timeliness
the point to
a prospective
suit
determined from
of
all the
has progressed being one factor
United States
v Oregon
745
F2d 550
552
9th
applying three prong timeliness test for intervention that assesses stage
proceeding prejudice
The two
2013
v New York
is
intervention of right available only on timely
b3
a practical
R Civ P 24b1 B
Fed
must demonstrate
24 a
subject
with the main action a common question
For both mandatory and permissive intervention
may as
the
R Civ P 24 a 2 Intervention
Fed
sound discretion
has a claim or defense that shares
or fact.
interest relating to
ability to protect its interest unless existing
parties adequately represent that interest.
courts
mandatory when a
is
that disposing of the action
matter impair or impede the movants
permissible in the district
mandatory or permissive
for either
to other parties
cases consolidated
respectively
Geiger et al
and
delays
reason
here were filed in October
Compl October 15
4
2013
and length
2013 and December
D Ct Dkt
No
Rummell
received
et
media attention
significant
consolidation of the cases
and
Jan 22 2014
at
setting of
16 16 17 23 18 1 19 6
Rosenblum in her
official capacity
constitutional
oppose
same sex
couples
2014
Ct Dkt
No
in February
knew
it
NOM
moved
58
January 2014
summary judgment
motions on April
briefing
Tr
23 2014
Ellen
justification existed for Oregons
NOM
or should have
to intervene
dispositive hearing
filings
from marriage and that the defendants would not
summary judgment motions was

scheduled
courts
Both
Complaint that the State Defendants agreed
on
to
and
D Ct Dkt
all of these facts
21
April
Answer
less
to
28
Compl
press release that day
position
known
complete
Mot
State Def. s
issued
condemning Attorney General Rosenblums
Even though
11
In February defendant
the relief Plaintiffs sought in this case
Feb 20
No
as Attorney General of Oregon stated explicitly in
with
valid
schedule for
Plaintiffs
no
district
dispositive
her Answer to the Rummell
Plaintiffs that
Ct Dkt
as did the
which was to conclude with a hearing on
exclusion of
al Compl December 19 2013
after briefing
No 106 7 Ex
and
on
circumstances
Plaintiffs
than two days before the
Intervene April 21 2014
D Ct Dkt
No
86
The
district
May 14 2014
D Ct Dkt
File
at
court held that
49 2
NOMs
motion
Although denial
EF
of
to intervene
was untimely
is
g Christian Gaston Two
Nos 106 3 106 5 6 Exs C

see also e
Ban on Gay Marriage Oregonian
Suit Against Oregons
http www oregonlive com portland
Dec 19 2013
Tr
subject
to de
More Couples
available at
index ssf2013 12two more couples file suit aga html Jeff
Gay Marriage Could Come by Summer after Federal Judge Consolidates Two
Cases Oregonian Jan 22 2014 available at http www oregonlive com mapes index ssf 2014 01
ruling on gay marriageinoreg html
Mapes
Ruling on
novo review a
NAACP
discretion
1503
1978
district
413
U S at 366
9th Cir 1996 Alaniz
NOM
United States
the facts the district
In deeming
NOM
The
court
NOMs motion untimely

filed its intervention
district
court
F2d 657
moved
11 04 p
by a deadline
of April
scheduled
and
2014
did
NOM
gave no advance notice to the
had
an
discretion
21 2014
April
April 23 hearing on
In other words
cases
at
While three other
NOM
suit
its
nearly three months after that hearing
briefs expressing their perspectives
not
Tr May 14
April 21 motion to intervene
which the
abused
9th Cir
that the parties said they expected would
Tr May 14
seek party intervenor
NOMs
658 59
m PDT on
47 25 48
schedule set in January allowed the filing
amicus
F3d 1499
to intervene less than two days before the dispositive
had been scheduled

The
86
of
court noted the following
the district
had on January 22
hearing in this litigation
abuse
marshaled
resolve all issues in these two consolidated
NOM
for
Washington
district court
motion at
reviewed
is
Lewis Foods 572
Tillie
has no credible argument that the
particularly given
finding of untimeliness
courts
progressed,
2014
at
Tr
status
permitting
amicus curiae
citizen
on
groups did
briefs
file
issues in this litigation
47 23 24 and 48 24 25
district court of its
May 14 2014
was thus untimely
and
of
NOM
relative
at
intention to
48 24 49
to the point to
to intervene would have
delayed adjudication
24
of the original parties
b 3 NAACP 413 U S
NOM
subsequent
to
involved
representing
trial
and judgment
court decision
Application
394
1977
interests of the
unnamed
class representatives
interests. Yniguez
class
because
Arizona
as
it
31 33
at
was granted
pre judgment
These cases do not help
reliance
an adverse ruling Tocher
plaintiffs
allowing
432
by
the
named
were changing course and not appealing
she promptly moved to intervene to protect those
F2d 727
state defendants
McDonald
longer be protected
735 36
9th Cir 1991
could intervene to defend initiatives
on
became clear to the respondent that the
City of Santa
post judgment intervention
against municipal officials where
representations
Ana
219
F 3d
by towing company
company
intervention because the district courts
primary business interests and because
ha d
proponent
district court
1040 1045
9th Cir 2000
in litigation originally
a good reason for its late
its
only became apparent after the district
court issued its final judgment that the City
based
that they would appeal
preliminaryinjunction did not affect
it
of
on
constitutionality
appeal where proponent had elected not to seek intervention in
on reasonable
NOM
to stop adequately
See United Airlines Inc
members would no
Arizona 939
ballot initiative
R Civ
intervenors interests in contrast to the Defendants
s soon
denial of class certification
render its
changing course so as
party unexpectedly
the prospective
Fed
365 66
consistent position in the present case
U S 385
rights See
argues that several cases in which intervention
intervention efforts timely
Each
at
constitutional
had
failed to adequately represent
company]
Serv Inc
interests abrogated
536
U S 424
Cir 2005 Here by

Defendants
The
2002
by City of
and
Tillison
v Ours Garage
Columbus
City of
contrast there has never been
San Diego 406
any doubt about
Wrecker
F3d 1126
9th
the
position
district
court also considered
the length
NOMs
delay in moving to intervene
NOMs
claim that the lateness of its intervention
only recently
defendants
became aware
See Oregon 745
would not be defending
In October
purported
reasons for
F2d at 552
Responding
motion was excusable because
that Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum
the constitutionality of Oregons
the district court further noted the following
and
2013
and
to
it
the other
marriage bans
facts
Attorney General Rosenblum submitted
an amicus
curiae brief in another case in which she took the position that the
United States Constitution bars exclusion
marriage
On
Tr
February
announced
May 14 2014
20 2014
at
of
same sex
Attorney General Rosenblum publicly
would not seek
constitutionality of Oregons marriage bans based
47 1
from
46 21 25 4
understanding
couples
of applicable legal precedent
Tr
to
defend the
on her
May 14 2014
at
4 See Brief of Massachusetts

California Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Illinois Iowa
Maine Maryland New Hampshire New Mexico New York Oregon Vermont and Washington as
Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants p 2 Sevcik v Sandoval No 12 17668 9th Cir Dkt 24 Oct
25 2013
NOM
demonstrated
its
development by issuing
constitutional
motions
14 2014
May 14 2014
was
violate the
known
See also
was
NOM
filed responses
F3d 1297
14 2014
calling
for
early
in which they argued
that
Tr
should be granted
this case so far in
it
1304
was
9th
May
at
4710 13 As early
of
tried to
prospective
Cir 1997
advance
NAACP
7 1972
a critical
413
by public
21
March
should have
motion
that
citing prospective
of litigation
since its filing
months
was untimely 6
as January
25 2014
and attorney general
to
counsel
for
proposed
uphold their oath of office
Oregon.
excuse its late effort to intervene by alleging that
Emergency Motion
for
Ninth
Circuit
it
believed
during
positions were planning
Stay at
of
stage because
intervenor
unlikely to oppose
had been aware
the Oregon governor
reached
April that other Oregon entities with similar political
intervene in this litigation
to the
U S Constitution and that
and had
admission that
has previously
March and
attempt renders that attempt untimely See
for

6
that admitted having been aware of litigation since
Wilson 131
Tr May
intervenor
47 8
18 2014
much about
so
before as the key reason motion to intervene
at
summary judgment
been aware that government defendant
intervenors
shamefully abandoning her
summary judgment
over three months old
had moved
LULAC v
on March
in February that
rejecting as untimely motion to intervene filed April
the suit
plaintiffs
for
or should have
interest organization
when
public statement
of this
47 14 22
at
its belated intervention
U S at 367
for
marriage bans
Plaintiffs
knew
own
this litigation
motions
Oregons
NOM
Tr
duty
Defendants in
Plaintiffs
That
its
Attorney General Rosenblum of
accused
awareness and understanding
2 3 NOM
cites
no
to
time required to
this case
and
court found
and
the
United States
Blaine
upholding denial
ed
district
has submitted no credible reason
of its organization
had
protectable interests in the outcome of this litigation until as they
Tr
stated in their brief only days ago.
fail
NOM
proposed intervenor
The
late filing
its
determine whether any Oregon member
and
contentions that the
Oregon members with alleged interests in
interview
prepare intervention papers warranted
that
for failing to
significant
identify
NOMs
but rejected
Finally the district court considered
May 14 2014
F Appx
County Montana 37
at
48 18 21
276 278 9th Cir 2002
both permissive and mandatory intervention
of
to offer sufficient
explanation
see also
for their delay in filing
where movants
motion to
their
intervene.
For the
until
April
time in
first
known
Application
now says
at
At a
minimumthough
advice
on how
of
to structure
outcome
7
efforts
of this litigation
The April 8 email that
says nothing about
D Ct Dkt
not going to defend
88
by others
Indeed
Upon
Oregons
If
to
toll
NOM
now contends
D Ct Dkt
18
did not learn
a grant
NOM
in fact
Ct Dkt
the
brief that they
of
should have
No
stage
through
its
of
alerted
110 1 Ex
NOM
admits that
learning
in
to
it
It
64
the proceedings
it
the States
NOM
began
10
truly
on
its
assessment pending
had a serious stake in the
own
intention
behalf
not to appeal in fact
no more information than
recruiting
March 2014 that the
court
p 34 7
members
gave
were eager to
offered the district
should have pursued timely intervention
NOM
that
already had on March
March
it
order
its
authority allowing prospective intervenors

possible intervention
it
Defendants were unlikely to appeal The State
Defendants indicated in their March 18 Response
implement a grant
that
position that they would not appeal
of the Defendants
summary judgment
NOM
this Application
defendants
I began
NOM
participants for this case in

in this
case were
trying to identify someone in
NOM
timely and
Defendants
NOM
bore the burden of demonstrating
it
failed
to
do so particularly given the evidence that
cause waited
cases that allowing
NOM
NOM
outcome
has no
failed to
realistic
U S 517
v
Fine Arts
531
1971
significant protectable interest
under some law and
protected
interest
Oregon who might be
and
and able
on
of prevailing
May 14
its
appeal
decision
of the
also correctly
significantly protectable interest in the
2014
at
49 10 13
Donaldson
U S 310
315 16 1985
An
an
there is a relationship between
to
action
if
it
asserts
an
in
United
claims.
Donnelly
applicant has
its legally
v Glickman 159
intervene to defend Oregons
interest that is
the plaintiffs
willing
superseded by statute on other grounds as noted in
United States 469
protected
of the
Protectable
Significantly
chance
demonstrate a
Tr May 14
of this litigation
States 400
Tiffany
had
Because
Case
denial of intervention because the district court in its
held that
intervene
to
of
so long to voice its purported interest in these
NOM
moved
it
court properly denied intervention
Interest in This
Additionally
before
was
was aware
it
would have adversely affected the rights
intervention
original litigants the district
months
position in this litigation
without good
that its attempt to intervene
F3d 405
marriage law in this
litigation.
8
NOM
factual
also takes issue with the district

allegations
Application
court expressly acknowledged

factual
allegations
the district
filing
courts
See
Tr
its
of
33
based on the facts as
courts
May 14 2014
NOM
point and its holding that
NOM
presented
legal
of
the
May
do so and did
at
13 21 24 451852 18
to offer
them
at
33
credit all of
district
arguments lacked
discretion
11
NOMs
NOM
district
nonconclusory
has mischaracterized
a credible legal justification for its late
as findings that
The
credence to its
14 hearing shows that the
to
failed
Application
NOMs
alleged failure to give sufficient
The transcript
obligation
observations that
themselves were not credible

this
at
NOMs
court
factual
correctly
credibility
allegations
applied the law on
was by no means an abuse
409
9th Cir 1998 quoting Northwest Forest Resource Council
825 837 9th Cir 1996

OConnor
see also
J concurring
In rejecting
NOMs
Diamond
claim that
it
possessed
standing
NOM
as
from any form
their
organization
of inquiry
NOM
organization
has asserted
NOM
a
an
asserted
had
on
in
See
this litigation
conclusory
marriage
Intervene at
9 10 D
of three
to
licenses
Ct Dkt No
That concession
Plaintiffs requested
official
capacity
insufficient to
2014
at
members
none
of
49 10 13
interest
of the interests
as
it
basis for intervention
members
same sex
is
87
NOM
is
fatal
a county
a judgment
couples
job duties
Memo
has conceded
represents the clerk in his or her personal capacity
12 20 23
members whose
requested relief might result in that clerks
of
even in
thus shielding those members
Tr May 14
manner a
claimed that one of its Oregon
the issuance
interest
refused to identify
of the individual
significant protectable interest in the case because
Plaintiffs
F3d
1986
NOM
sought to rely
based on the perspectives
qualifies as
75
by the court or the parties as to the nature and extent
purported interests in
Although
an
proceeding any
or in camera
sealed filing
U S 54
82
discussing nature of significantly protectable interests
in this litigation the district court noted that
Charles 476
v Glickman
only
Since the declaratory
clerk
possesses
granting the
coming
to include
Supporting
however
Tr
who
that
Mot
it
May 14 2014
and injunctive
at
relief
in this case would affect local government officials in their
rather than in their personal capacity
demonstrate that
its unidentified clerk
12
NOMs
allegations were
member had a
significant
to
protectable interest in the outcome that could be delegated
organizational
requiring prospective
interest
and
Id
standing
at
50 10 11
show
intervenor to
claims As
the plaintiffs
to issuing
marriage
While
table
NOM
Application
licenses
before this
local
to
grievance.
Donnelly 159
member had
same sex
Tr
at
33
this
to intervene
F3d at 409
its
legally protected
noted NOMs
couples represented
May 14 2014
at
interest as a
matter
of
clerk
has no greater
no more than
50 10 11
seat at the litigation
Court need not delve into the question
whether a
of
Oregon law because no
in his or her official capacity
Court NOMs
through
a personal religious or moral
broadly asserts that clerks are entitled to a
county clerk has a protectable
has sought
NOM
the district court rightly
claims that its unidentified county clerk
objection
see also
to
and no such
interest in this case
government employee with a personal preference
clerk
clerk seeks
stay
than any other
against facilitating the
licensing of certain marriages
NOM
also contended
that one of its
members
measure that amended the Oregon Constitution
marriage
But
for
same sex
as the district
a general
be meaningless
and
not
Tr May 14
if
Memo
court concluded
interest
intervention.
couples
Supporting
Mot
to Intervene at
11 12
the voters interest in the outcome of a case
at
who
on
to include a prohibition
2014
every citizen
voted for the 2004 ballot
49 23 50
voted for
intervention
ballot proposition
authority to intervene as of right in all challenges
13
The
interest that
would allow
is
for
standard would
retained perpetual
to the resulting
law
See
generally Hollingsworth
standing of
133
Ct
We
to
decline
members
Lastly
some
NOM
some
unidentified capacity
Memo
Supporting
rejected this argument
Mot
services
first
of their
345 46
for the
at
services
weddings
10 11 The
6th
Cir 2007
was
2014
at
commitment and or
weddings and
for
of
same sex
district court rightly
difficult
exact job function
and
50 13 16 As
many samesex
court further observed in the past decade
celebrations in Oregon
time here.
not entitled to defend the
that the claim
Tr May 14
to marriage equality
when
Oregon members work in the private
of its
the absence of specifics about such individuals
objections
state statute
through the democratic process
to Intervene
as well noting
F3d 323
487
related to providing
have a personal objection to providing
couples
v Cox
validly enacted
alleged that
of
to do so for the first
of the general public are generally
a law
constitutionality of
sector in
have never before upheld the
private party to defend the constitutionality
noting that
We
at 2668
to assess
in
particular
the district
couples have hosted
their legal
marriage in another
jurisdiction Because Oregon law already prohibits discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation by retail businesses the alleged potential
describes already exists for anyone
provides
NOM
wedding related
itself
services
has contended that
forced by Oregons
its
who
in
Oregon
wedding
marriages or cease providing
wedding
operates
service provider
services,
14
NOM
business open to the public that
Tr May 14
law to
moral dilemma
facilitate
2014
at
50 17 51
members would be
same sex
thus acknowledging
couples
that this
an
represents
objection to Oregons
long standing nondiscrimination law and not to
the marriage laws at issue in this case
Stay at
NOMs
of
three arguments that its
and
protectable interests in this case thus fails
likelihood
The
District
rejected
it
court also proceeded
reviewed
Baltimore
1037 1044
to reject
for
observed that
abuse
NOM
NOM
is
argument that
its
Oregon public
for
The
argument
for permissive
to the lower courts
for
the district
intervention
sound discretion and
Brotherhood
of discretion
of
R R Trainmen
524 25 1947 McDonald v Means
district
court appropriately declined
request for permissive intervention
Washington
that its approximately
number
was
intervention
its
F3d
300
to exercise its
NOMs
representative
it
is subject
9th Cir 2002
In reviewing
and found
NOMs
O R Co 331 U S 519
discretion to afford
therefore has no reasonable
Intervention
NOMs argument
Permissive intervention
is
NOM
significant
Court Correctly Rejected NOMs Arguments
Discretionary
After
members have
in its appeal of the denial of mandatory
of success
that
Ninth Circuit
19
Each
denial
for
of
D Cbased
political
the district court
lobbying organization,
100 members in Oregon do not constitute
Oregonians with regard to the strength
NOMs
of
participation in the case would give voice to the views of the
Tr May 14
2014
at
5115 22 The
declining to exercise discretion to allow
purports to speak for the people of Oregon
district court further
NOM
to intervene
without being in
15
any way
noted
because
NOM
accountable
to
as
the people of Oregon
51 23 25
for
instance
Perry in which this Court rejected a similar
and thus
private interest organization
to intervene
elected branch of government
simply because
at
English
52 3
of state officials
see also
Arizona 520
not defending
at
posture
52 7
U S 43 44
to
1997
expressing
district
for the
Tr May 14
Arizonans
for Official
grave doubts about
defend state law provisions state attorney general was
in abeyance
by NOMs
to allow this cases timeliness
Tr May 14
intervention
court thus demonstrated careful analysis of
extent of the intervenors
significantly
in the suit
and
interest,
contribute
to the just
presented, Perry 630
2014
and
district
intervention
equitable adjudication
F3d at 905
NOM
and
the nature
to full development of the underlying factual issues
of the legal questions
having determined that NOMs intervention
Tr
May 14 2014
court acted well within its discretion in denying
and
as well as whether the proposed intervenors
would serve to prolong or unduly delay the litigation
The
disagrees with the
as defendants in a case
S Ct 2666 67
by
substitute
effectively
the organization
Finally the district court declined
to be held
effort
The
would
named
Hollingsworth 133
advocacy groups standing
and
at
In rejecting the permissive intervention request the district court also
cited Hollingsworth
2014
are Id
the elected State Defendants
cannot show any likelihood
NOM
of success
on
at
now
contends
its
appeal
that the district court should have permitted its
16
permissive
denial
NOM
52 7
of this
intervention because interposing
marriage bans was necessary to
of Oregons
Application
applicable
who sought
party
at
31
law
This
both the
distorts
The Defendants
solidify the
this case resembles
The
controversy
and
decision
courts
jurisdiction.
and the
marriage
in this case continued enforcing Oregons
to defend
marriage
of
was genuine and
purported concerns
when
133
to
same sex
In that sense
S Ct at
at the time of the district
justiciable
about
licenses
the bans constitutionality
Windsor and the cases cited in Windsor
the well settled rules as to
lower
facts of the present case
bans by refusing to issue or sanction the issuance
couples even as they declined
to defend
2684
87
courts
do not warrant departure from
justiciability
intervention is appropriate
This Court Is Not Likely to Overturn the District Courts Merits
Ruling Because
Additionally even
NOM
NOM
if
Lacks Standing
were permitted
to
Appeal
to
intervene that victory would be
quixotic at best given the present posture of the case
If
became a
it
defendantintervenor
NOM
down
Oregons
chance
would lack standing
to appeal
the district
marriage laws as unconstitutional
that this Court would ever review
much
There
less
is
courts decision
striking
accordingly no realistic
overturn the
district courts
rulings on the merits
Article III
appeal
standing
Diamond
judgment
476
for reasons
There as here a
is
US
this
not always necessary to intervene but is necessary to
at
Court explained in Hollingsworth 133
State declined
the ballot initiatives
68 69 NOM
to defend
its
an
adverse
S Ct at
marriage exclusion law
2260
68
Unlike here
proponents intervened in a timely fashion to mount a defense
17
Id A
federal district court struck
attempted
the intervenors
standing to do
To have
so
standing
Their only
appeal
We
had no
and
having the
and
held that they had no
seek relief for
of
an
He must
injury
possess
Here however
outcome
District
validity
of their
appeal
Court order reversed was to

generally applicable
law
have repeatedly held that such a
claiming only
application
directly
large
does
generalized grievance,
standing
is insufficient to confer
to his
and
and
an
internal citations
litigant
every citizens interest in proper
and laws and
tangibly benefits
not state
no
about government
generally available grievance
harm
of the Constitution
more
2662 63
must
individual way.
direct stake in the
interest in
raising only
at
a litigant
a personal
matter how sincere
Id
to appeal
the State declined
in the outcome of the case
vindicate the constitutional

California
law
an appeal Id This Court
to bring
to
him in
direct stake
petitioners
the
reasoning as follows
that affects
down
Article III
him than
seeking
relief that
no
does the public at
it
case or controversy.
omitted The Court concluded
We
have never
before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of
state statute
first
when
time here.
The
Id
at
instant case
argues that
its
county clerk
is
Tr
it
does
distinguishing fact
not however
May 14 2014
NOM
materially indistinguishable
is
claim to represent the interests of a
at
We
decline
to
do so
for the
2668
represent the interests of
clerk
to
50 3
It is
private citizen
not As
who
from Hollingsworth
member who
discussed
goes to
work
is
above
NOM
an Oregon
NOM
every day as
may
a county
represent a county clerk in his or her official capacity
also attempts to distinguish this case from Hollingsworth by arguing
that the decision
by the Oregon Attorney General not to defend the
18
same sex
marriage ban even in the
supplies
NOM
although continuing
district court
with standing that
it
an
has no
organization
reason to find standing.
2013
1154
terms
case
It
The
USA
if
NOM
allowed to intervene
when even
Ninth Circuit review
133
is
not a
S Ct 1138
could not appeal the result in
would make no sense to grant a stay pending appeal
intervention motion
assumption that
sue no one would have standing
This
omitted
citations
Accordingly even
this
standing to
Clapper
it somehow
would otherwise lack under Article III
Court recently rejected a similar claim in unequivocal
if
to enforce
if
on
successful
motion
that
from
of the merits or certiorari
could only intervene in the district court proceeding
this
NOM
of
NOMs
could not obtain
Court At most NOM
which
has already been
resolved
NOM
Cannot
Merits
NOM
devotes
If
Application
because the
This Court Were
much
This Court
district
of its stay application
and
denial of
to attacks on the substance
the
NOM
are largely irrelevant to
of the
NOMs
hear a merits appeal in this case
NOMs motion
in any event
on
Review the Judgment
is very unlikely to ever
courts
certainly be affirmed
to
Likelihood of Success
and order These arguments
courts opinion
district
Show a Reasonable
to intervene
will
almost
lacks standing to bring
merits
appeal
But even
if
NOM
could overcome the
above and secure this Courts review
NOM
numerous
procedural hurdles described
of the underlying constitutional
cannot demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood
19
questions
that this Court would overturn
the district courts
deeming Oregons exclusion
decision
of
same sex
from
couples
marriage to violate the Equal Protection Clause
argued in their motions
Plaintiffs
optimal
environment
in this case because
it
for healthy
is
for
summary judgment
was
childrearing
elsewhere are already raising children together
marriage serves only to disadvantage
irrelevant to the issues at stake
many samesex
undisputed that
that the ideal or
couples in Oregon as
Excluding
their children
it
samesex
has no impact on how
other children might be raised by their married biological parents
those
establishing
will
reduce incentives
Plaintiffs strongly
disagree
on parenting by
research
application
much
for
with
same sex
NOMs
same sex
to
characterization
couples the
same sex
provides
no
couples to marry in
marry Accordingly
while
of the social science
research
NOM
which has been thoroughly discredited 9
of
by
couples
NOM
system in 2008
contention that allowing
for its
that Oregon
childrearing by
facilitate
its registered domestic partnership
support whatsoever
Oregon
and
to acknowledge
and
many
In response to
the State Defendants further noted
public policy supports families of all configurations
had chosen
couples from
is
in its
cites
immaterial to the
issues in this case
NOM
and the
trial
and
allied
See e
testimony
excluding
nom
of sociologist
same sex
Snyder 973
Dr Mark
assertions similar to these in a number of prior cases

every time
F Supp
affd
nom
sub
Regnerus and
Perry
Perry 133
Brown
it
has been subjected
2d 757 765 68 770 72

related
couples from marriage Perry
Hollingsworth
Blankenhorn
made
they cite has been rejected
g DeBoer
ND Cal 2010
sub
advocacy groups have
research
671
S Ct 2652
arguments regarding
Schwarzenegger 704
F3d
1052
U S 2013
to
E D Mich
the scrutiny of a
2014
F Supp
for
2d 921 945 947
9th Cir 2012 vacated

rejecting
discrediting
justifications
and remanded
testimony of David
president of the Institute for American Values regarding marriage fatherhood
family structure
as unreliable In re Adoption of
Doe 2008
20
WL
5006172 at
17 Fla Cir
and
Ct Nov 25
NOMs argument
prerogative to exclude
that Windsor mandates total deference
same sex
hold that federalism would
controversies
couples from marriage also fails
trump all
other constitutional
States prerogative to set their
own
As
Windsor did not
in subsequent
concerns
public policy
law structures by no means authorizes infringement
liberties
to states
and
establish family
this Court has just observed The States are laboratories
may not
experimentation but those experiments
Hall
Constitution protects.
Florida
for
deny the basic dignity the
No 12 10882
2014
WL
2178332
at
16
May 27 2014
NOM
overturning
has no basis
the merits decision
somehow were
that
below even
noted
While
above
Oregons
were granted intervention and
this
mean
The
Issues That
Attorney General has chosen not to appeal the
Court
it
may well
soon
revisiting the standing
previous research
NOM
may
has no legal right to supplant it
elect to take
surrounding marriage equality granting
rejecting
in
Seeks To Litigate
disagree with that decision but
primarily
it
likely to succeed
This Case Does Not Appropriately Present
court judgment invalidating Oregons
district
2008
if
would be
it
able to establish standing to appeal
NOM
As
for contending
up
constitutional
questions
certiorari in the present case
and
justiciability
presented in Lofton supporting
questions
categorical
would
on which
ban
of
this
homosexual
Howard v Child Welfare Agency Review Bd No 1999 9881 2004 WL

3154530 Ark Cir Ct Dec 29 2004 affd sub nom Dept of Human Servs
Child Welfare Agency
Review Bd v Howard 367 Ark 55 238 S
3d 1 2006 discrediting clinical psychologist Dr
couples from adoption
George Rekers and

structure
related
arguments that a homosexual household
that is not in the best interest of children
21
provides inferior family
Court
set clear
standards
just last year in
cases challenging
same sex
and or
couples
recognition of
present
officials subsequently
better vehicle
Nor
at stake 11
judgment
equality
years
cases that
laws that prohibit marriage
same sex
appealed
than this one
in the absence of
there
is
Meanwhile dozens
couples
10
for
at least eleven cases have resulted
Clearly
who
party to this case
which state
case in that posture would
for ultimate resolution
any
of
marriages are currently
finding such laws unconstitutional
in federal district court decisions
local
state
Of these
pending in courts around the nation
and or
of
Hollingsworth
of the
important issues
seeks to overturn the
basis for staying this case pending resolution of other marriage
may or may
Accord Landis
not
come
before this Court in future
N Am Co 299 U S 248
ordinarily a litigant should not
stating that
be compelled to stand aside while a
See Notice of Appeal
Notice of Appeal Bostic
DeBoer
in
litigant
ED
MD
ND
v
No 13 482
Notice of Appeal Latta
11
Snyder
Rainey
Latta
No 12 10285
No 13 395 E D Va
or
Mich Mar 21 2014 Dkt No 153

Feb 25 2014 Dkt No 144 Defs. Notice of
Appeal Tanco v Haslam No 13 1159
Tenn Mar 18 2014 Dkt No 74 Def Sally Howe
Smiths Notice of Appeal Bishop v United States ex rel Holder No 04 848
Okla Jan 16
2014 Dkt No 274 Notice of Appeal to the Seventh Cir Baskin v Bogan No 14 00355 2014 WL
1568884 S
Ind May 8 2014 Dkt No 66 Notice of Appeal Obergefell v Wymyslo No 13 501
S Ohio Jan 16 2013 Dkt No 68 Notice of Appeal Kitchen v Herbert No 13 217
Utah
Dec 20 2013 Dkt No 91 Notice of Appeal by Def Intervening Def Steven L Beshear In His
Official Capacity as Gov of Ky Bourke v Beshear No 13 750
D Ky Mar 18 2014 Dkt No
68 Notice of Appeal Henry v Himes No 14 129 S Ohio May 9 2014 Dkt No 33 State Defs.
Notice of Appeal De Leon v Perry No 13 982
Tex Feb 27 2014 Dkt No 74 Gov Otters
10
1936
255
months
Otter
NOMs
Otter
No 13 482
D Idaho
Idaho May 14 2014

May 14 2014 Dkt No 104
in
F3d
859
8th Cir 2006
is
which a party with standing
NOM
409
also
decision
1972
raises
Application
has been substantially
U S 699
the constitutional
at
15
Notice
myriad
certiorari
issues addressed
certiorari
As the Second
diminished by
F3d
in
at best an argument for granting
argues that the present case warrants
U S 810
Baker
Dkt No 103
other grounds for claiming this Court will or should grant certiorari also fail
assertion of a conflict with the Eighth Circuits
455
WD
because
it
of
Appeal
Their
Bruning
in some subsequent
in
case
Bruning
conflicts
with Baker
Nelson
Circuit has noted the precedential value of
doctrinal
developments in equal protection
169 178 79 2d Cir 2012 including this Courts decision in Windsor

itself
See Hicks v Miranda 422
S 332 344 1972 describing impact of doctrinal developments
on precedential value of a summary affirmance
law Windsor
22
another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of
For
all these
reasons
NOM
cannot show that
this
both
Court
reasonably likely
is
to grant certiorari in the present case
The
II
A
its
Equities Weigh Heavily Against Issuance of a
appeal and because
this
Court
is
is unlikely to succeed
stay equities
weigh in
its favor
whether
can show none
it
there is
of the public interest in the situation
Winter
is
NOM
claims
it
has suffered
result of the denial of intervention
case do not outweigh the clear
and
harm
of irreparable
greater and the nature
is
suffering
entry of judgment
to Plaintiffs of
former marriage bans Even
if
and or
Inc
555
resuming enforcement
NOM
heavily as the
harms
previously suffered by the Plaintiffs as
the injunctive
relief already
NOM
Holder 556
it
and
the additional
its
members do
harms
result of Oregons
associated
granted in this case several
not weigh as
weeks
with suspending
after it
Will Not Suffer Irreparable Injury Absent a
To demonstrate
demonstrate that
predicts to itself
laws and
that the equities weigh in its favor
will be irreparably
U S 418
434
2009 NOM
of
they are generously viewed as likely to
harms
exclusionary marriage
will suffer as a
for the Plaintiffs in this
the
come true
NOMs
2008
The harms
Oregons
the merits of
of the traditional
likelihood
whether the harm a stay would cause other parties
U S 7 20
on
unlikely to grant review of this case
stay should also be denied because
requested
harm
NOM
stay should not issue because
Stay
harmed
Stay
a stay applicant
in the absence
of
a stay
cannot meet this standard
23
took effect
must
See
Nken
NOMs
give rise to cognizable
members
favor
irreparable
harm
This is by definition
harm
to demonstrate
See supra
is
that three of its
district
Purported
specific
irreparable
Harm
Monday May 19
for Plaintiffs
to
and
Plaintiffs
NOMs emergency
protection
The
district
a motion
of injury
U S 531
cannot show that
542
it
likely to suffer
stay motion on the
for stay
and must
1987
will
for
see also
suffer irreparable
24
Many
their marriages
must balance
Amoco Prod
harm
couples
on each party
Winter 555
an
the afternoon of
and celebrated
the effect
relief.
marriage laws
same sex
pending appeal courts
consider
summary
court then entered
bans Thus on
Oregon began allowing marriage
granting or withholding of the requested
Gambell 480
its
Far Outweighs Any
exclusionary
couples immediately applied for marriage licenses
competing claims
is
the district court issued its opinion granting
right to equal
In evaluating
it
warrant
failed
NOM
order enjoining enforcement of the marriage
Monday May 19
harms
NOM
19 decision remains in effect
After the Ninth Circuit rejected
violated Plaintiffs
specific individualized
court correctly determined that
The Harm a Stay Would Cause
of
pp 11 15
unable to show
May
Judge McShanes
NOM
contends
significant protectable interest in this case so as to
NOM
intervention
judgment
NOM
generalized interest not
For the same reasons the
morning
At base
do not
are unhappy that this case proceeded to a judgment in the Plaintiffs
irreparable
if
members
interests in this case based on its Oregon
derivative
Co v
U S at 20
without
the
of the
Vill
of
Here while
a stay
Plaintiffs
samesex
have shown that Oregons marriage exclusions caused
couples
and
their families serious
In support of their motions for
and
irreparable
same sex
ways
that
to marry in Oregon caused
them
not only dignitary
harms
In particular Oregon
Plaintiffs built
harm but
many
and
couples
able to travel out of Oregon
of the federal benefits associated
survivor
benefits even
if
sometimes denied private
employees
Motion
for
See
the district courts
until
sector
D Ct Dkt
arguments in
Kitzhaber slip
op
at
23
No
33 Rummell
to deprive
granting
government interest the laws
S Ct at
2694
Plaintiffs
them
Id
at
violate the
appeal
that Oregons
district
court credited these
for Plaintiffs
any
Geiger
legitimate
Equal Protection Clause.
full
see also
legal recognition
same sex
of the denial of its
25
due
marriage laws discriminate on the
observing that lack of
NOMs
in Support of
rational relationship to
parents marriages demeans the children of
marriage ban pending
contended
1643 The
Oregons
Memorandum
Plaintiffs
summary judgment
Because
basis of sexual orientation without
Windsor 133
to access
benefits such as health insurance for the spouses of
protection rights
its opinion
marry were unable
if
with marriage such as Social Security
Summary Judgment 13 16
and equal
with marriage
they did marry in another jurisdiction and were
marriage bans thus operated
process
to
factual
and
also practical
decision could only access stateadministered benefits associated
they were willing
exclusion from the freedom
couples
same sex
as well as other
harm
summary judgment
record detailing numerous
tangible
them
couples
of their
Reinstating
the
motion to intervene would
same sex
again subject
not yet married to these
Oregon
couples in
some
NOM
harms12
Stays
Have Been Issued
puts great weight on this Courts decision
S Ct
Kitchen 134
Jan
893
2014
but to no avail
state officials in Kitchen were engaged in
Utahs ban on marriage
for
same sex
The same is
courts injunction
more defendants has appealed
couples
no
contrast
NOM
implementation
proceedings
was
One day
of the ruling
The marriage
after it
licenses
injunction
after
to
denied
NOMs
NOMs
contention
associated
to
2014
courts
WL
6 16
2048343
merits decision
show any
where the
realistic
the fact that marriage has

widespread confusion
13
of those
cases one or
on the merits13
Here
in
the ruling so no stay serving
during the resolution
Otter
No 14 35420
same sex
of appellate
district
Cir an
May 19 2014
See Evans
granting
is
likely to
incur
same sex
courts
same sex
administrative
couples since
merits decision
Utah
financial
Application
samesex
continuation
See note 10 supra
26
in
of
costs
at
37
in
Nonetheless
May 19
and the
Oregon law would cause contribute
Oregon
its
be overturned and the
couples in Oregon since
and frustration that a second reversal
stayed
overturned ignores both
the judgment were subsequently reopened
available to
the public interest in marriage equalitys
will
No
couples performed
and
May 19
is later
that the merits decision

if
appeal
preliminary
Kitchen v Herbert and before that decision was
in
possibility
now been
D Utah
20
9th
couples in the days since the district
otherwise valid marriages of
scenario
issued to
certificates
continued validity of past marriages even
to
In each
motion in this case the same three judge
with the marriages entered into by
hypothetical
inability
and
require Utah to recognize
the district
in which district
are valid regardless of ensuing legal developments
merits decision
2 14 CV 55 DAK
cites
the district
or is warranted
panel granted a motion to stay in Latta
courts
stay in Herbert
appealed
decision
courts
party with standing to do so has appealed
to interrupt
Unlike here the defendant
and had
true in other cases
the district
ordering
vigorous defense of the constitutionality
courts or circuit courts granted stays pending appeal
12
who have
of the Plaintiffs
This Case Differs Significantly from Other Recent Cases in
Which
of
including
from a
district
courts
Kitchen the State
down
order striking
is prosecuting
an appeal As
recognize the instant case is different
Here
ban
marriage
Idahos
In Latta as in
the Ninth Circuit seemed to
the subject
of the
appeal
is
denial of
motion to intervene not a merits decision and no appeal with a potential to
the judgment
is
forthcoming
Supreme Court Rule

circumstances
requested
was
an
first
or judges thereof.
failure to
23 3
application
e xcept
in the most extraordinary
for a stay will not be entertained
unless the relief
sought in the appropriate court or courts below or from a judge
NOMs
application
never sought from the
and judgment
should additionally be denied because
at the
motion to intervene
intervention
and on
May
NOM
court hearing
district
then
the morning of

proceedings
14
May
district court a stay of its
granting Plaintiffs the relief they requested
stay of proceedings
of its
filed
May
NOM
notice
19
of
NOM
19 opinion order
sought a
verbally
moments
after the denial of
appeal regarding the denial
before
of
the district court decided the
unsuccessfully sought
an emergency
stay of
in this case pending resolution of its interlocutory appeal on the
question of intervention
requested
provides that
comply with this rule
NOM
was
alter
NOMs Application Is Procedurally Deficient As It Never Properly

Moved Below for the Relief It Now Requests of This Court
III
its
In its emergency
in the alternative
not ripe because
no
motion
district court
for
courts
stay of proceedings
judgment
but this request
judgment yet existed
After the district court issued its opinion order
27
NOM
and judgment on
the
May 19
afternoon of
its intent
to appeal
NOM
on
May
filed
the merits decision
notice of appeal did not request
Accordingly although
decision
22
protective
stay of the decisions
NOM
notice of appeal indicating
just before issuance
However NOMs
effect
of the district
courts merits
in this case tried unsuccessfully to obtain a stay of proceedings
the district court or the Ninth Circuit
stay the effect of the district courts
released
precluded
Nor has
its
NOM
May 19
never properly asked either court
order
and judgment
for the particular relief
should not be entertained
28
it
to
after they were
identified extraordinary circumstances that
asking the courts below
this stay application
NOM
from either
would have
now seeks
pursuant to Rule
23
Thus
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons
stay of the judgment pending
its
this Court should
intervention
NOMs
deny
application for a
appeal
Steven
Shapiro
Counsel of Record
D Esseks
A Saxe
James
Rose
American
Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
New York NY
10004
2125492611
sshapiroacluorg
Amanda
American
Goad
Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
1313 West 8th Street

Los Angeles
Thomas
CA
90017
Johnson
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie
NW
1120
Portland
LLP
Couch Street 10th Floor
OR 972094128
Jennifer Middleton
Johnson Johnson
Schaller
PC
Eugene Oregon 97401

Cooperating attorneys on behalf of the
ACLU
Kevin Diaz
ACLU
PO
Box 40585
Portland
OR
97240
Attorneys for PlaintiffsRespondents

Basic Rights Education Fund
29
Lea Ann Easton

Dorsay
SW
Easton
LLP
Portland
OR
97204
503.790.9060

Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison Street
OR
97205
503.227.1928
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Respondents
Nelson
Dated June
2 2014
30
Duehmig and
Griesar
Geiger
APPENDIX A
on Motion
May 14 2014
to Intervene
1
THE
2
3
DEANNA

DISTRICT OF OREGON
HON MICHAEL
GEIGER and JANINE

DUEHMIG and WILLIAM
NELSON ROBERT
4
GRIESAR
Plaintiffs
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
6 13 cv 01834 MC
No
6 13 cv 02256 TC

official
capacity as State
his official
County Assessor
13
Defendants
14

WEST
LISA CHICKADONZ
and CHRISTINE
15
No
FUND
16
Plaintiffs
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

official
capacity as State
his official
County Assessor
24
Defendants
25
REPORTER'S
TRANSCRIPT
EUGENE
WEDNESDAY
OF PROCEEDINGS
OREGON
MAY
14
PAGES 1
4
5
2014
55
COURT REPORTER
Kristi
Anderson
Eugene Oregon 97401
541 431 4112
6
7
8
Kristi Anderson orduscourts gov

9
OF COUNSEL
10
APPEARANCES
11

ROBERT DUEHMIG AND WILLIAM
12
13
14
15
GEIGER
GRIESAR
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
503 227 1928
Fax 503 334 2340
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lea Ann Easton

Dorsay
Easton LLP
Suite 440
Portland OR 97258
503 790 9060
Fax 503 790 9068
Email leaston dorsayindianlaw com
JANINE
NELSON

PLAINTIFFS BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION FUND
AND CHRISTINE
TANNER
Jennifer
Middleton
Schaller
975 Oak Street
Suite 1050
Eugene OR 97401
541 683 2506
Fax 541 484 0882
Email jmiddleton jjlslaw com
Johnson Johnson
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Kevin Diaz
Box 40585
Portland OR 97240
503 227 6928
PO
ACLU
AD
Misha
Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
10th Floor
503 727 2086
Fax 503 346 2086
Email MIsaak perkinscoie com

15
16
17
18
19
Thomas
Johnson
Perkins Coie LLP
10th Floor
503 727 2176
Fax 503 727 2222
Email TRJohnson perkinscoie com
20
21
22
23
24
25
FOR THE DEFENDANTS

JENNIFER WOODWARD
JOHN KITZHABER
Anna
Joyce
Oregon Department
1162 Court Street
Salem OR 97301
503 378 4402
of Justice
NE
ELLEN
ROSENBLUM AND
1
2
3
4
5
Sheila
Potter
Portland OR 97201
971 673 1880
Fax 971 673 5000
6
FOR THE

By phone
501 SE Hawthorne Blvd Suite 500
Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138
Fax 503 988 3377
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
DEFENDANT
RANDY
WALDRUFF
Madkour
Jenny
Office of the Multnomah County
Suite 500
Portland OR 97214
503 988 3138
Fax 503 988 3377
Email jenny
Attorney
mmadkour multco us
16
17
FOR OREGON
18
Leonard
Feldman
By phone
Stoel Rives LLP
Seattle
Suite 3600
Seattle WA 98101
206 624 0900
Fax 206 386 7500
Email ljfeldmanstoel com
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED
FOR MARRIAGE
AMICUS
BRIEF
FOR THE PROPOSED INTERVENOR

FOR MARRIAGE
INC
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DEFENDANT
NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION
John
Eastman
o Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Orange CA 90807
877 855 3330
Fax 714 844 4817
Email jeastmanchapman edu
K
SW
Roger
Harris
5000
Meadows Road
Suite 400
503 968 1475
Fax 503 968 2003
LLP

11
GENERAL
12
INDEX
13
Argument by
Mr
Eastman
Pages
14
Argument by
Mr
Johnson
Pages
15 32
15
Argument by
Ms
Potter
Pages
21
16
Ruling
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 41
22 36
35
38
40
PROCEEDINGS
WEDNESDAY
COURT
THE
Thank
Ms Pew
THE
District
CLERK
of Oregon
McShane
al
versus
like
United
is now
Good
States
COURT
12
So I thought
All
right
time sometimes
group
who
MR
go ahead
Geiger et
maybe each
is going to represent
themselves
everyone
It
takes
more
with
the plaintiffs
if
you'd
your introductions
JOHNSON
20
Rummell plaintiffs
21
behalf
Your
and I
Honor Tom Johnson for the
will
also be speaking today on
of the Geiger plaintiffs
22
THE
COURT
23
MR
JOHNSON
25
Michael
than the hearing itself
So let's
my
for the
you
for each
I guess we can introduce
19
24
Thank
begin by having
their interests today introduce
to make
13 01834
could
14
like
Court
we
of the attorneys
18
District
oral argument
13
17
case
in session the Honorable
al
Kitzhaber et
THE
16
our
to call
is the time set for Case
11
15
morning
presiding
Now
9
10
you everyone
you'd
2014
remain seated
Please
if
14
MAY
our clients
All
right
We have
again
The only person
We
who
Thank
you
I won't
did that
last
introduce
time
is not here today is
all
of
Mr
you Mr Johnson
THE
COURT
Okay
All
right
For the defense
MS
POTTER
Oregon
Justice
Department
county
Sheila Potter for the Department

excuse
me
I am sorry
be arguing on behalf
the Oregon
of the state
and the
defendants
THE
COURT
All
10
All
right
For the proposed
11
MR
JOHNSON
me Roger
right
with
Harris on behalf
13
COURT
14
THE
15
So I have
to do is recite
All
intervenors
John Eastman
of the intervenors
right
read the
you
Thank
McShane
Judge
12
16
of
of Justice
I will
Thank
Thank
and
National
you Mr Eastman
briefs and what I don't want
the briefs into the
record
I would like to keep the discussion focused
17
18
law and try to keep
19
briefs to a minimum
20
strong
21
legal issues we need
views
some of the hyperbolic

I know
each
statements
in the
side has very different
of the motion to intervene
but there
are some
to resolve
22
on the
23
probably going to pose more questions to
24
the burden
25
intervene
Mr
am
Eastman
because
is on the National Organization for Marriage to

But I
will
ask then
the other parties if
they
have
particular
So
2
3
Mr
Roberts fairly
He
Eastman I will
states
We
have
standing of a private
constitutionality
officials
for the first
have
10
any law or cases
chosen
time
11
court has in fact
12
the Executive
13
MR
15
specifically
16
not representing
THE
19
briefing
20
statements
21
overlapping
22
to and it
to
We
Chief Justice
be
is still
defend
25
injury is different
state
to do so
is there
the federal
party to stand
in for
law
good
Well Your Honor I think that
to intervene
But
if
is
about
on behalf
They
of the
particularized
you continue
were
state
injuries
to say in your
up with
your
and they are somewhat
they won't
defend
it
somebody has
us
EASTMAN
24
where
decline
or maybe I am mixing it
should
the
the
to where
a private
their separate
is that
upheld
in Hollingsworth
can cite
in the newspaper
MR
23
that
COURT
that
not
what Hollingsworth
seeking
before
party to defend
statement
you
EASTMAN
mischaracterizes
18
says
here
allowed
Branch
14
And
that
never
of a state statute
So after that
17
start with
Eastman
blunt holding in Hollingsworth
Mr
comments on anything that
Well that's right
the statute because
the
party has
than standing in the
But seeking
particularized
shoes of the
to
attorney
general to defend
represent the
state
Hollingsworth
case itself
County
because
have
was
denied
But
have
county
but that
clerk
did not
We have
11
THE
COURT
13
MR
EASTMAN
14
THE
COURT
15
seek
a county
But
county
clerk
clerk
the law
said
the court
to
the Imperial
case that was
to enforce
was not before
10
12
in that
and the deputy
clerk
to
clerk and I think the
obligation
county
are not claiming
the county
itself
any independent
The
We
intervention
the county
it
us because
didn't
there
may well
the
intervene
to intervene
seeking
not in any official
capacity
you
don't
Well Your Honor
How
do you distinguish
Karcher
May
issue
on that
MR
16
17
actually
think
18
way
19
authority
20
Supreme
21
attorney
Karcher
EASTMAN
it's
Well Karcher
much
Court had allowed

general wouldn't
The Supreme
23
their continuing
24
but it
25
injury
was
closer to our case and it
to intervene
them
who
goes our
had no
other than the state
to intervene
when
the
defend
Court of the United
intervention
because
They
May involved
May had two legislators
under the state
22
after
they
States
rejected
lost their offices
they had no longer any particularized
had particularized
injury as long as they were
10
in those legislative positions
Here
our county
clerk
continues
to be in that
know would be bound by
position and he or she would
a ruling by this court which the plaintiffs
permitted
permitted
officers
10
Well
to proceed
11
MR
EASTMAN
12
THE
COURT
only because
capacity
So what I
is an individual in some county
14
clerk
15
have
16
court about
17
seal
somebody
20
because
21
some county
22
objection
23
that
24
25
any attempt
as a
they may have
to
capacity
they lost
know
As soon
standing
about
They
at some
to a
same sex couple
it
A religious
with
declarations
made this statement
clerk
works
in this
a dialogue
at having
to
your clerk
in Oregon who
orders about
protective
who works
19
they were state
are not making an appearance
You simply have
18
were
Well
13
avoided
Roberts
in an official
as they lost that
They
have
been
We
is it
as a
case
declaration that
was
way
under
have
injured
point issue a license in
and they have
personal
a religious
objection
mean
I am not striking the recent
filed
You
this
was your most current declaration

And by the
Karcher and Orechio were
this is Justice
acting
seek to have
issued
COURT
THE
you
know
there was
a motion to
11
strike
I don't think it
more information
moving
this
bit more information
I forget who filed
target
it
lot other than a little
adds a whole
which
Every
leads
me to believe
But I
am not hearing
relationship
relationship in Hollingsworth
between
MR
EASTMAN
12
are
the reason
13
well established
14
those
15
I want to unpack
cases
in NAACP
There
have
or the voters
21
didn't disclose
22
were that
23
NAACP
wanted
Alabama
There
Court in that
who
discrete
disclose
are a whole
line of cases
to
provider
interests
who
the clerk
married customers
services
or that
their members
host of cases
that
so
doctors
their confidential
wouldn't
of
issues
or the wedding
we are not disclosing
is is the same reason the
25
clerk
and then those particular
20
24
and a large number
thirdparty standing
18
So the reason
problem we
think is I think
this to kind of get the

is NOM's
The
a number of cases where
been
represent the interests of the
vague
Alabama
17
19
agency
relationship
Well wait a minute
we are being
The first
16
any agency
and their local government
your clerk
11
us a little
capacity
An agency
is a
well who is
I mean Roberts goes on and on about
10
giving
official
bit
your clerk
questions
time somebody
clerk we get another declaration
it
But I am going to allow
from the
specifically
Supreme
say when
you
12
have
confidentiality
might follow
situation that
standing
got problems about
would
lost the harassment
be
as a result of
So that's why we have

the second
piece
of
that though
clerk him or herself have standing
intervening on the clerk's
clearly be standing
And that's the prior round
11
Perry case doesn't
address that
12
moved to intervene
in that
13
that
14
be different
15
16
comes
we cite
The clerk
by that
injunction
18
bound
19
clearly be standing
member of us with
22
private
capacity
23
clerk's
behalf those claims
25
And I
these concerns
think
in the
a clerk had not
clerk
may well
when
it
the
finally
issues
that
about
of that
standing because
who
I think
is can
was
there would
that you know it
I think
21
being a
think
of the state
So now the question
20
the clerk
But the language
may well have
So as an official
is does the
in Perry
down when a statewide injunction
17
24
because
case
in our brief says
And if
behalf
own
thirdparty
for the
that
done
10
that
that that's exactly the
sets up the opportunity
Now
that
exposing yourself the
is going to be
there
would
clerk by being a
harassment in her
member allow us to raise on the
what we set out in our brief on
For example if
this
a clerk was
13
going
to be forced
after a decision
from here made that
job different
it
the clerk
run for
would
had been
when
to resign
be a personal
I ever know
haven't
county
for someplace
that
even
How
that's
given
had first
could
not do the job

than
us
would
under
I mean I imagine if
like Lake
harm
a personal
even
that
I ever know
duties
How
seal the name of the
we looked
at the census data
County for example and that's
Oregon Lake County is a fairly non populace
not being from
11
county a large one but not much population
12
that
in fact
13
Lake
14
information to
15
harm
16
willing
17
individual
decide you know is this a hypothetical
is a real
to make
harm or are Lake County officials
an accommodation
19
we have
20
that's going to happen
got a phantom
MR
21
22
think
23
pleaded
EASTMAN
the Southwest
facts
we may find
there are almost no gay families registered in
But the way you
18
would
mean you
10
it
what
office that
COURT
THE
because
back
to
have
for this particular
formulated it
to the court
here take my word for everything
him
Well two things
Center says you
have
First of
to take
THE
COURT
25
MR
EASTMAN
Not
conclusory
facts though
Not conclusory
facts but
all
the well
as true in a motion to intervene
24
is
14
THE
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
We could
That's
They
are beyond
we could
submit a declaration
redacted
because
identifying
the problem
I'd
official
13
in an official
MR
COURT
16
means that
17
authorization
18
are going to expend
19
is
20
intervenor
like
a declaration
authorizing the
from the county
clerk
to intervene
Well as we represented
clerk
there doesn't
There
have
know the other
which
to be a specific
does have
county
in our reply
elected
is independently
to be authorization
funds
the
They
purpose
are
not
of the
if
so
they
which
thirdparty
here
THE
COURT
Okay
we have
kind of jumped off of my Hollingsworth
Let me hear
22
parties on
23
question into the issue of the
24
clerk
25
without
submit a declaration from the
I'd
EASTMAN
brief the county
21
county
capacity
15
you
the names and the county
to
who is actually
14
with
exactly identify the
But I could
12
seal
submit something under
clerk which you know is part of
the county
THE
11
I can't
have
inquiry
Well let me propose this then
We could
clerk
with
am faced
Well
10
what I
I will
hear from the
from the other
substantial
parties on
harm to the
that
15
Mr
Johnson do you want to go first
MR
JOHNSON
specifically
THE
COURT
Yes
Let's talk
interests of the clerk
that's
MR
From a review
9
10
brief it
seemed that
person was
about
would
Your
12
was before the
13
What
of standing
going
to stand in the shoes of our
16
going
to
17
office
They
20
21
exercise
it's
of the county
that
member and then we are

capacity
the
county
issue or personal
they are trying to then assert
a personal issue
It's
really kind
through
that
is
of a free
issue
And the office
22
this
capacity
also then adopt their official
that
that
are attempting to say we are
And the kind of personal

interest
but conceded
NOM is attempting to do here is really borrow
15
19
brief NOM's reply
court
two levels
18
Honor
to be the office
14
of that
question
the substantial
of their reply
they had all
have
What
a member of the National
not here in their official

It
11
Yes
JOHNSON
Honor
Your
23
is
24
And so they can't
25
that
doesn't
office
have
of the county
a religion
The office
represent the county
whatever
itself
They
county
is
can't
that
secular
adopt
16
The
in terms
personal interest
about
summary judgment briefing
you are talking
in the Misha Isaak
the
all
in all
actually
you look at that
Honor in front of the court in the
Your
about
there is exactly the evidence
We submitted
declaration
of the
I think
Exhibit 8 or
for the last seven
of the domestic partnerships
that
it's
that
it's
all
of
years six years
have
been
applied for
of the counties
10
were by my reading last night seven or
And there
counties
that
have
for
So it's
11
eight
12
applied
13
person a county official

It's
14
personal issue that
16
under the Smith
17
Ms
18
is that
19
can't
Easton
never
completely
or
this is actually
spoke
about
ever face
this
this
on just the
a free exercise
issue
are a number
21
There
22
legal and in none of
23
any of those states
24
recognized
by any
There the law
at the last hearing
a free exercise
THE
that
case which is the peyote case which
religiously neutral
claim
And we were looking
20
would
speculative
a generally applicable
have
speculative
not
also completely
15
25
if
then which is what you were talking
all
of the
of states
where
where
last
gay marriage is
night
now
not find a single case in
court
COURT
What
you
there
at the research
we could
law
do you mean by
free exercise
17
right
Sorry if
MR
2
3
you
drug
said well
peyote
what
Ms
that
I am not
JOHNSON
a person
there was
test
So in that
and they came

it's
working
up positive
Justice Scalia
11
that
12
get
13
So it's
14
there
I have
opinion
wrote that
to smoke
finding
here
right
the generally
anyone who walks
And they
at the last hearing
there was no free exercise
Here
peyote
on
had a
said Justice Scalia and that was
remember the feedback
10
for the state
And the court
Easton
case in the Smith case
the neutral law would
in the door of this county
has to
know any two people would have to get married
you
neutral
it's
a neutral
law
And then there's also a question in terms of the
15
nature
of the
claim that
there's
we
don't
16
speculative
17
have
18
accommodations
19
that
20
the
21
Honor that in this state marriage is really a state
22
function
23
talk
24
talking about
25
be
any evidence
somebody
forms
that
could
with
Lee
do the stapling
State
And what happened
about the Perry
What
Oregon law
happened
state
Schwarzenegger
that
That
or the filing
case is quite
in that
county
clerk
not be made for this
else could
The
this particular
of
clear Your
and we can
case but we are
here
in Lee
State
was the lawsuit was
18
filed
said okay
clause
Then Measure
Well that's
marriages
issued 3,000
before Measure
And then the Supreme

Measure
the
came
36
That's
said not so fast
We
have
of those marriages came
valid
no
Court of Oregon said was
is the arbiter of marriage in
Oregon
COURT
THE
11
So why did you file
12
Multnomah County
13
when
14
arguments
15
I forget which cases
those are
16
might have
me
17
been
18
in fact
19
been
equivalent

is why the clerk
to remind
decided
named as a
clerk
clerk especially
read one of the first
now
But there
and I
out of the
am
sorry
are some cases
one of the holdings
has no standing
and should
case
You
that have
is that
not have
party
So why did you do
21
MR
that
of a
against the
should be thrown
on marriage where
the county
might ask
of a
I have
20
22
36 is not a violation
So they are all
the state is the
Court
privileges and immunities
And so all
And what the Supreme
10
came
And Multnomah County
36
JOHNSON
Your
this
Honor I imagined that you
question
23
So we filed
our lawsuit against
the
24
Oregon and the office
of Multnomah County
and the county
25
assessor the office
the
official
capacity
State
of
in order to
19
have
to have
purposes of the order that
county in that office
But we knew
THE
other clerks
COURT
And we knew
10
we knew
11
under Lee
JOHNSON
here
is
that
we would
would
Exactly
at the
but please
holds that
14
that
office
15
it's
tomorrow some other
16
name in the caption
Exactly
don't tell
issued
and
order
Honor
Your
them Your Honor but

and named
county
him because
and not his
20
we are requesting in the order what
21
disrespect
22
of this lawsuit
23
marriage
to any of the issues that
views
Waldruff
The
it
argument
it's
we have
not
or the relief
his personal views
but we don't
what his personal
when
If
care for purposes of the relief that
germane
COURT
office
that
name
19
THE
here what his personal
Mr
that
person we would have put their
we are requesting
to
is the person
he holds
18
personal
be
for
time and I realize that the
position who is the
But we don't
24
State
State
13
17
to the same
But importantly Randy Waldruff
12
25
hope
we might be susceptible
of Lee
in front of the court
who are going to be subject
MR
county
in light
Well then why not other counties
of caution
in an abundance
views
that
no
care for purposes

are about
is that
same sex
somebody's
comes to religion can
be a
20
MR
it
harm can't
significant
Honor
JOHNSON
Perry
It
Your
Perry is very
before the last paragraph
having
state
happening
be
but
Hollingsworth
clear
a private
could
said that
we have
in to intervene
or state statute
constitutionality
or Hollingsworth
said the final
As you
party come
not in this context
the sentence
never
recognized
to defend
and that's
the
what's
here
So in terms of those
vows
personal
although
they
10
may be very important
to someone they are not
you can't
11
come
effectively
general
12
and defend
13
happening
14
personal
in as a
as
as the
here
And
they
and that's
are just doing
I want to
I know
based
at the outset
you referenced
16
hyperbole
17
And I
18
this case are acting
19
need
20
NOM's brief there was reference to
21
times
am completely
I wanted
and I
confident
in good
on those
COURT
24
MR
JOHNSON
25
THE
COURT
You
that
the
don't want to dwell

that
all
of the
on
lawyers
that
in
faith Your Honor but I
to address just very quickly
THE
23
it
what's
views
15
22
attorney
the
in
collusion a number of
know I don't want to discuss
that
Okay
I think
it
was a poorly
very
21
choice
poorly
word
discretionary
where people
are accusing
conduct
this court
conversation
it
does make
when
intervention
on
JOHNSON
THE
COURT
10
about in terms of
whether
each
I want to go down
has seen
none
So I don't
want
Okay
So I
she wants
want to hear from
to weigh
Ms
Potter
on
in on the issue of the
clerk
MS
11
12
repeat
13
won't
POTTER
I think
Thank
Mr
you
Johnson
Your
Honor
made some good
I won't
points
those
repeat
I think it's
14
important
legal interest
here that
15
substantial
16
unable to carry out his or her official
17
if
18
develop
19
would
20
she
21
carry out part of his or her duties
22
delegate
23
a road
it
MR
this issue if
me question
It
this court
is not that
were to enter an
such that
at some
point down
in which
any of those duties

And I
the clerk
would
duties
It
order then events
find himself in a position

I am sorry
the expressed
the
be
is that
might
line the clerk
or herself in which
he or
he or she does not want to

and does not want to
to someone
don't find any
support
just having
else
in any
case
24
25
to want to do part of your job is a substantial
law for
a personal preference
legal
not
22
interest
such that
it
I think it
would
support
here
an intervention
also really raises some troubling
interests with
respect to transparency
this person can
as an elected
represented and is seeking to hide an act that he is
attempting
people who will
next election
only come
to take
as an official
be called
if
official
upon
county
in appearing
11
or her interests it
12
capacity
13
that
THE
COURT
15
burden so I will
16
comments
Eastman
has
from the
for him or her in the

interest
of this
in this case to argue
for his
a nongovernmental
Okay
MR
EASTMAN
18
hypothetical
Suppose
19
who had a strong
20
there was a case challenging
21
abortion
22
public
23
of
that
Mr
give you the
17
25
this
interest
group
he or she is a member of just personally
14
24
to vote
should be done
and not through
Mr
of this county
10
as
if
of this county
in as an official
of this county
official
because
Eastman you have the
kind
of final
reply on these
So I want to give a parallel

we
had a public
moral objection
with
a nurse
to performing abortions
a state statute dealing
said they don't have
hospitals and it
hospital
with
to be performed in the
was challenging
that
as a violation
sought was
every public
unconstitutional
And the relief
employee in that
hospital
would
and
that
be obligated
to perform
23
abortions
these
appearance
organization
The nurse doesn't
on her own behalf

that
opposes
The fact
4
it
that
is affected
part of an
there was a personal
by her public
sufficient to give her standing
standing for the organization
by that
And here's what
an
abortion
that
10
to make
but she is
want
duties
that
but
are going to
I think is
litigation
and hence
of which
interest
the third party
she is
a member
the Oregon Supreme Court
said in
Lee
The
11
12
licenses
13
county
ministerial aspects of issuing marriage

in Oregon
function
And then it
14
15
that
16
licenses
have by statute long been a
the county
clerk
goes on to list
has
The plaintiffs
17
through
the litany of duties
in the issuance
here have
sought a statewide
18
injunction
19
reach to every county
20
performance of those
21
this injunction
if
this court
22
requested
it
will
23
that
24
they ran for that
25
as a result of this court's ruling and the injunction
And
are involved
the named
of marriage
clerk
state defendants
So the county
that
will
clerk in the
duties is clearly going to be bound by

the
relief
they have
implicate interests of hers or his
because
office
grants
the job that

will
that
person
took
when
now be dramatically different

that
24
plaintiffs
have
sought
than it
The standard
2
3
one
particularized
injury that
Hollingsworth
That's
interest
the subject
injury
It's
relating
But
it's
12
they were required
and the nurse would
Here
13
15
office
the marriage that
16
going
17
things
18
suppose but you can file
to a clerk's
not handing
office
20
have
21
an injunction
22
those
23
obligated
24
injunction
EASTMAN
that
that
is
an
transaction if
it
would
It's
COURT
in any
to their
this county
Okay
in an
are two
something I
that
case
the plaintiffs
They
clerk
that
have
clerk
will
in response to such
All
different
county
require every county
duty
of rights
I mean marriage and
Then the relief
to perform that
THE
is
out a certificate
to get paperwork
sought is not relevant
licenses
transaction
I mean they have to file
I don't
MR
the
the transaction is the conferral
It's
19
transaction
to participate
of marriage
It's
or the
in
protectable
be part of that
14
25
a significant
about
action
of this
abortion
Roberts was talking
to the property
11
is a very minimal
not the kind of generalized
In your hypothetical
10
otherwise
been
interest and it's
the Chief Justice
COURT
have
for intervention
a protectable
THE
would
right
In the
sought
to issue
be
an
again I
25
turn to Roberts in the Hollingsworth
to talk
issue and what you are asking the court to do is say
because
with
failure to defend
organization
government
what I
about
think
without
will
And I
Branch's
the law
mean it
11
replace the Executive
12
answer
to
relationship
would
Ms
be me telling
you Ms Rosenblum
Branch with
to no
one
answer
15
no
16
them
17
are not elected
18
all
19
one amicus
20
have
21
period
22
however
23
defend
Rosenblum
I am going to
an agency
that
doesn't
is
they decide
Yet petitioners
for themselves
with
review what arguments to make and how to make

Unlike
California's attorney
general
they
at regular intervals or elected
No provision provides for their removal
at
As
explains the proponents apparently
an unelected
appointment for an unspecified
of time as defenders
and to whatever
of the initiative
extent
they
choose
to
it
And isn't
Branch
to the
you
14
25
case that a private
in this
And what Roberts said
13
disagree
in
stand
who is right next to
that
interpretation of the law and
any agency
10
he continues
really is a separation of powers
there are members of your organization
the Executive
24
case where
he really saying that
should not get involved
the
in who and how
Judicial
the Executive
26
Branch
is going
MR
2
all
due respect
with
discussion
that
initiative
provided
way
on the fact
they
that
whole
12
question where
13
injuries
have
been
16
government
17
nothing since
18
was relatively recently
19
cases
that
in a
was being
in the environmental
COURT
21
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
injury
earlier if
I had any case
to intervene
adequately
particularized
when
or fully
the
defending
Chief Justice Roberts opinion because
THE
23
asked
was not
20
22
objecting
alleged specific
allowed
where people
itself
of defense
they
we now have
15
doing was
think doesn't deal with the
And Your Honor
14
had passed no longer
general
because
discussion
11
were
to the lack
They
the proponent in
injury
by the attorney
10
Honor
Your
Roberts begins that
that
And so all
generalized
The difference
is Chief Justice
by focusing
No
EASTMAN
these decisions
to make
But there
are a whole
context
for example
That's
that
slew of
Well it's
but
That's
where
the separation of powers
24
issues come
in
25
legislature
says citizen lawsuits the consumer protection
There
are tons of cases
where
the
27
But when
2
And I
Judicial Branch
don't
MR
creates
EASTMAN
Oregon bestows
such an interest
Given
clerks
on county
been
very clear
on
that
I think
not create
have
authorized has
is that
14
for others
15
to flow
16
that
17
to at least be able to raise some objection
the particularized

injuries that
here
clerk
state you know
standing to be able to intervene
Honor you mentioned
earlier on the
question of discretion
One of the
20
there's great discretion
is on the timeliness question
21
I do think
22
that
23
case
24
and it
25
unprofessional
the only issue where
as part of the discretionary
all
seeking the same relief
taking
makes
not meant as a claim that
conduct
and
are going
19
was
it
to be
we are saying
in the law in this
gives them enough
And Your
What
particularized
from a change
18
standing if
that
13
that
the law in
The Supreme Court's
permitted
have
the
here
12
who
if
the law does create
injury
grounds
So what the statutes
11
don't know
them
to create
of particularized
is I
the duties
And the statutes could
lawsuits
citizen
does the Judicial Branch create
has the authority
10
the law
I mean the question
law
the environmental
judgment
But
the fact
the same side of the
this by definition
there's
but by definition
any
collusion is
28
when
you take
admitting things that

THE
3
4
collusion
the same side of the case and you are
COURT
Don't
let's
collusion because
chose
have
on a legal
gotten
topic
THE
COURT
12
MR
EASTMAN
13
THE
COURT
word
15
bad choice
of
MR
words
You
the parties
to agree
point Your Honor
should have
a different
chosen
The middle point

You
factual
18
the
19
adversarial in the
law
It
EASTMAN
17
should have
a middle
suggested
When
you have
point
It
was a
unprofessionalism
somebody
a problem with
a different
chosen
makes a concession
claims or on legal claims that
on
are not warranted
both parties
in
not being
case
20
THE
COURT
21
MR
EASTMAN
22
THE
COURT
25
suggest that
There's a middle
I don't want to hear about
16
24
would
You
word
14
23
honor Mr Eastman
have
it
10
11
of
I mean that's the import of that word
EASTMAN
on
it
not the definition
together not that they just happened
MR
8
9
That's
Okay
All
That
right
was
And
the argument
that
Thomas
made
in his dissent
MR
was whether
EASTMAN
they had
Well but again the issue there

the California Supreme
Court had
29
said they have
of the
whether
are
entirely different
state
standing because
Right
They
they represent the
did not
The particularized
on the
is
cases
agency
case
Hollingsworth
is an agency
they did make
the claim in their
what Chief Justice
Roberts was
that
11
Chief Justice
12
generalized
13
reasons why we have
14
was
one
the backers
EASTMAN
18
claim
19
it's
20
hypothetical
21
African American
22
change
23
district wide
And I think
They
three different
injury
didn't
The county
a vote
clerk
well
as
any different
make
than
case
dilution
again maybe
here is
but let me make
in a
claimed
here is a
background
Let's suppose
a city
in Alabama
an
majority temporary majority decides to
their electoral
system from an
a citywide
The city
somebody
got
is the voter
They
the
they didn't
are important
the argument
my law professor
24
we have
of the initiative
MR
17
How
about
you are claiming
the others
COURT
make
in
brief but that was not
particularized
but I think
THE
15
I think
didn't
injury that
Roberts said all
injury
They
talking
10
25
on
And what Chief Justice Roberts is talking about
16
the point
injury which is what we
making
make
interests
attorney
at wide
to a district
doesn't
like
election
that
move
system
And so
sues alleging that the effort to make that change
30
in the law was designed for the explicit
benefiting
concedes
then sets up a summary judgment motion that
negates
a particular
that
And the city
That
of that
would
African American
a vote dilution claim even though
generalized
10
who voted
There's nothing
in favor
Hollingsworth
12
dilution
13
generalized
14
vote
15
the front end from casting
16
back
end by conduct
17
have
those
throws
out that
But because
have
it
in
entire history of vote
is
in that
of the
sense
right to
away either by blocking you on
taken
that
Court's decision
of the importance
it
or negating
effectively
its
effect
it
negates
on the
that
you
claims
And that's why I
think
19
particularized
20
way back
21
Every one of those involved
22
particularized
one in the
23
particularized
in standing
24
routinely recognized
25
thing could
their interests are
But every one of them
and not have
18
of that
in the Supreme
11
cases
completely
extent
to that
that
That
case and every
negation
attorney
election
citywide
be a vote
of
complaint
point in the answer to the
the effect
race
purpose
to Reynolds
THE
the voters
COURT
here have
from those cases
Sims on those vote

a generalized
dilution
and yet the Supreme
Okay
in those
Ms
all
the
cases
injury not a
way we normally talk
standing
about
Court has
cases
Potter do you want to
31
respond
to
that
MS
Just on
votes
their votes
It's
Honor
Your
counted
enforced
People
Measure
who
voted
were diluted
and the hypothetical
what happened
here
The other thing
is that
12
is relevant
13
articulating
14
voters
15
analysis of the law and articulating
16
she determined was the correct
17
and Oregon
of this lawsuit
is an injury that
general
he believes
engaging
What
that
he is
were done
to the
legal position that
one on the basis of federal
not the subject
to be this
of this lawsuit
injury appears
20
and the attorney
21
on the legal question that
22
There
23
lawsuit which is a question of whether
24
civil
25
is
in an independent
the
19
isn't
to
law
That's
18
is not the injury that
to the subject
by the attorney
any of their votes
the injury that
Mr
is discussing
law
is
is just not comparable
11
Eastman
It
36 had
today
right now
10
you
for Measure
law
36 became
There's no basis to say that
Thank
sense of course the
in the immediate
diluted
weren't
being
Yes
POTTER
general
the fact
reached
is the subject
COURT
the plaintiffs
the same legal conclusion
an injury to the voters
THE
that
The
of this lawsuit
on the subject
of this
the plaintiffs
by Oregon
law
Hard one to explain to
voters but all
32
right
Mr
2
3
to if
Johnson any comment on that
you don't
MR
have
JOHNSON
would
like to make
the Supreme
say that
the individual views
individual
the court
11
court
12
Diamond
Your
is that
views
add
Honor the only other point I

of trying
that
voters
a person
people
might have
might have
you mentioned
to minimize
in Hollingsworth
was not considering
that
cited
to
in terms
Court's holding
the court
10
anything
You don't need
Perry and
in their
or the
holding
in its
the Karcher
case but the
also in its reasoning and in its opinion cited the
Charles
case
And in that
13
case there was a particular person
was a criminal statute outlawing abortion
14
There
15
number of
OBGYN's
16
to defend
that
17
abortion
somebody
18
that
19
consistent
20
what the court
21
that
22
law because
23
there are fewer
24
So they had both an economic
interest
25
forth and this kind of value
interest
statute
law
came
to challenge
And a conscientious
who had value
Measure
said was
they had a
they
36
that
attempted
and that
an economic
objector
to
people would
to intervene
person
said well I am a pediatrician
that
with
say
And
also indicated
interest consistent
abortions then there will
state declined
interests consistent
similar to the views
with
and the
that
with the
and if
be more patients
they were putting
33
And the court
1
2
come
chooses
not to enforce
want it
enforced
in and represent the
the court's ruling
Perry talked
THE
about
side of the state when
and Justice
case
that
COURT
and said you can't
this law in the way that
And the court
dismissed that
Okay
you would
Roberts in Hollingsworth
That
I'd
the state
case is inherent
ask you
to respond
to this
statement
10
A prime purpose
of justiciability
is to
11
ensure vigorous advocacy
yet the court
12
upon
by state officials
13
preference
litigation
conducted
is to lose the
And granted
14
that
is
insists
whose
case
in Justice Thomas's
does certainly reference what the
dissent
15
but it
16
is something that
17
be
and improves decision
18
as opposed
that
improves the system

to hinders
19
What
20
MR
are your thoughts
JOHNSON
think
not going to be too roundabout
22
of a history lesson
So when
intervenors
are
should
making
it
21
23
in
on
I
that
will
but
answer
will
here in terms of this
we came
into this
24
plaintiffs
we were a couple
25
plaintiffs
and we brought
I am
give a little
case
case the Rummell
months behind
our case
that
knowing
the Geiger
that
that
bit
34
there was an answer in the Geiger case already
answer
Mary Williams
attached
the memo from then Deputy
point
when
so we were
we came
it
that
would
I have been on the other side of the
that
be potentially
That
a bit different
That
DOJ
11
asked
12
scheduling
13
date because
14
Hollingsworth
15
okay
16
might be confronted
17
assert certain interests in the way
18
want those
19
the court
that
20
date came
and
Perry
We looked
we are going to have

with
is
into that
time
an amicus
We
a situation here where
a situation where
that
at
said
the court
the state may not
some
people
So let's
date
there be an amicus
looked
at these issues and
interests to be asserted
would
propose
And that
to
amicus
went
But the thought
21
at that
here
the court
order for the court's consideration
record
consolidation
order and we inserted
we did the research
where
And so we knew
that we inserted
in January
for a scheduling
this case
was in the court
10
And then after
that
from other cases
And we had the hearing for the
General
was clear to us at
into this lawsuit
obvious
was
Attorney
Jordan not that Michael Jordan
to Michael
And the
and that
we recognize
was that
yes
22
this
23
terms of the fact
that
24
the same way that
some organizations
25
to be defended
Your
a bit of a different
the state is
but that
doesn't
Honor that
experience
not defending
out
change
in
the law in
there might want it

the law in terms of
35
whether
2
3
or not they have

THE
COURT
MS
POTTER
Okay
Ms
Yes
Your
Potter anything
on that
issue
4
state
has advised
state
has certainly laid out arguments
in other cases
all
defending
those
if
the court
Honor
around
the
wants
country
only
the
to hear the
that
The
the
have
court
their state bans vigorously
assist the court
11
arguments
12
opportunity
13
We
in its
decision
been
made
has available
and responding
also if
the
to
them
court
So the court
wishes
from NOM on the legal questions that
15
16
with
17
presenting
18
those
19
objection
to the court
20
receive
late filed
21
of the arguments
we analyzed them
were not a basis to uphold
And I
deciding
the
that
that
it
wants
think
it
really gets
between
distinction
24
has suggested
25
And the problem is it
that
are part of
that
advocacy
it
wants
to
has that
briefing
this not
those arguments
the
state is not
and determined
law
it
we don't
would
amicus brief in which
23
attempted
to receive
simply to make
a level of vigor and conviction

because
We have
by laying out those
14
Not
cases the briefings by defendants that are
10
22
here
like
NOM can
that
have an
to
make all
to consider
the court
this gets to the
and being an adversary and NOM

to play an adversarial
is not an adversary
role
to the plaintiffs
36
here nor are its
could
that
members because
order NOM to do would

the plaintiffs
who are in a position
defend
adversarial
brief if
don't
that
any effect
on the
an adversary
isn't
The
The advocacy
the court
have
wants
an objection
THE
COURT
11
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
relief
can
parties
to do something and to
the state law are in the case already
role
this court
seeking
to be ordered
10
12
have
are actually
So legally NOM
nothing
be handled
That's
the
by an amicus
a late filed brief
to accept
We
that
to
Okay
Honor can I address that
Your
point
13
Yes
And I
think Mr Eastman I am
those are really the heart of my questions
14
probably
15
if
16
respond
17
to consider
a general
you want to make
statement if
So
you want to
and anything else outside of your briefs you want me
MR
18
now would
EASTMAN
You
19
said repeatedly
20
law
21
necessary adversarialness
22
Justice Kennedy's
23
are only enforcing
24
least two
25
Canada and are seeking
and
that
be the time to convince
me
know on this both parties have
the state
defendants
are enforcing
that under Windsor was enough to create
the
for jurisdiction according
opinion
But that's
not accurate
law
respect
half of the
of the plaintiffs
With
the
to
They
to at
those who were married out in
to have
the
37
was
filed the attorney general said
day after the lawsuit
we are not going to enforce
adopted
the
that and they have actually now
regulations in this state not enforcing
that
law
So at least on that
5
6
not a defense
either
adversarialness
opinion
even
that
under
Justice
and Miller
11
Wright
12
case where the parties desire
13
by intervention
14
rights that
The
of a genuine
Kennedy's
we have
of the law
Windsor
easy qualification
the same result
adversary
rights
or voters
may be saved
affected
clerk
who are
dilution claim or
adversely affected
17
wedding
18
regime that
19
20
requested those are rights that might be adversely
21
affected
22
name
23
organization
24
to them intervening
We
who are going to have
they have
to operate
if
it
THE
that
there's
to intervene
COURT
a different
as a result
intervene
of a
themselves
have
on their own
clear authority
on their behalf
Okay
legal
Any one of them could

believe
under
who represents the
of a county
on a vote
to
is that
16
providers
not only
that according
otherwise might be adversely
So if
15
there is
creates a real problem for
There's an easy way out of
sic
it
part of
of the law but not an enforcement
And I do think
10
25
part of
given
for us as an
the hurdles
38
Anything
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
want me to consider
MR
5
6
your briefs
else outside
No
Your
Anything
from the other
parties you
your briefing
outside
JOHNSON
Honor
Honor could I talk about the
Your
COURT
THE
and I
think
I have
notes
of findings
MR
10
You
have
with
that
12
complete discretion
there's
The only thing I
of the district
THE
COURT
14
MR
JOHNSON
16
proceedings
here in my
wanted
is
court
there's
the reason
three prongs
for the
The
stage
we
made the
again about
38 hours
point I am not going to make it
19
before the motion for summary judgment was heard
20
that
21
applicable
22
of the proceedings
then the cases

You
23
And I
24
Your Honor have
25
longer
on both sides
know it's
in this
and involved
and all
of
were frankly not
really the question of the stage
case
am sure that
been
of the
delay and the prejudice
18
And
to add is
obviously in the
On the stage of the proceedings
17
Yes
13
for timeliness
new
to the timing
one of the factors in timeliness
15
something
together a list
put
regard
JOHNSON
11
can if
involved
we all
all
in cases
many depositions
that
the lawyers
and
went on for much
and that
kind
of
thing
39
That's
not this
case
But if
the court
what kinds of cases
stage
at all
if
decided
Honor but if
them that
10
could
of the proceedings
of the cases
that
I compare
we would
have
been
in the direction
that
been
this to to determine
urge Your Honor
filed
decided
to look
post Windsor
And
here Your
we are seeking
the same
case
So in terms of the stage of the proceedings
11
that
they are
believe
13
in Virginia was
14
The Love
15
decided
in February
16
brought
17
months
brought
late that the Bostic
12
sic
the
cases there are a number of
you look at those
have
see okay well
cases and now I think 13 have been
you look at those

all
were to look to
The
case
Lee
was brought
case
in February
in July and decided
Beshear
Rainey
we
in July and

in February
was
That's
three
The De Leon
18
THE
COURT
19
MR
JOHNSON
Which
case was
The Lee
brought
21
De Leon
22
decided
in February four months
23
Idaho District
24
ban
25
yesterday
That
Court struck
case was brought

The
am
sorry
was
February three months
20
Perry case in Texas
that
was brought
down
in October
And just yesterday

that
state's
The
and
the
gay marriage
in November and decided
motion for summary judgment in that
case was
40
filed
2
3
18th the same day we filed our motion
on February
THE
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
Timing Mr Eastman if
Okay
you
to
want
The one thing not in our brief on
this point
is the statement
director counsel for the plaintiffs
January
the state's
exhibits attached
25th
I think
defense
by the ACLU's executive
it's
here back on
a little
early to characterize
36
of Measure
This is in one of the
10
I think
we will
not
11
the state responds to our own
I think that's true
13
And what happened
then we learned
since
or
were
a clear picture
motions for summary
12
legal arguments
have
until
judgment
that what
14
those
15
abandoned we learned that there was not going to be an
16
appeal
taken
And quite frankly
17
own to intervene
18
its
19
members who had this NAACP
20
themselves
21
diligent in trying to pull that

THE
22
That
until
NOM did not
did not
COURT
standing
it
became clear that
Alabama
happen
Okay
have
All
it
on
had
hurdle to intervening
overnight but we were

together
right
I am going to take
23
a brief recess maybe five minutes and go over my notes
24
think
25
am going to take
I am prepared to issue a ruling on intervention

a
let's
take
five minute recess
So I
41
Recess
1
THE
2
3
notice
filed
COURT
I did want to address a filing
of request for information regarding recusal
I had a little
asked
being
notice
have
on January
hard time understanding
I think there's a misunderstanding
of both the facts
contributed
10
some to misunderstanding
what was
in the
of the facts
back
22nd
be
never
455 a
made a
Section
12
would
a waiver by the parties to the case
13
finding hasn't
You
would
I have
finding under
warrant
it
that
11
for recusal that

A
made
been
know there's quite a
don't think
there's
15
a legal basis for a nonparty or maybe even a party to
16
discovery of a judge
17
my mouth
18
explaining some
on an issue of recusal
up on January
of this to you
notice
20
were raised in the
21
think
22
marriage I have never
23
a public
24
an advocacy
25
group
because
Despite
22nd
attended
I cannot
that
did open
it
some
was
raised
of the issues that
And I want to begin by
statement
but I
22nd so I don't have any problem
So let me kind of clarify
19
was
case and I may
and the law in the
So I want to clarify
14
that
intervenor
by the proposed
the
On the issue of gay
rally
I have
recall having
supports gay
never
donated
made
money to
marriage
being gay and involved
in the
law
the
42
subject
of gay marriage has held little
interest
not read the entirety
the dissent and I had read none
opinion
would
me
to
And I
receive
know
that
What
Until
legal or personal
I was assigned to this
decision
of the Windsor
I had read
of no personal
is dependent
case I had
or financial
on the outcome
of this
was that
generally
10
that
could
11
are
12
basis upon
Oregon to avoid political

come
me
before
made but inadvertent

which
There
14
marriage and where
15
subject
it
16
Mass in recent
17
to read political
18
to the congregation
19
marriage
probably
years it
comments
same sex
has become
statements
hearing was a CLE I attended
22
raised it
23
the speakers
24
moved to Eugene
25
was approved
I believe
I didn't know
been
the
I am
times I attend
very common for a priest
condemning
21
when
is
be questioned
reasonably
has actually
Another example that
because
which
comments of others are not the
examples on an issue of
to comments it
20
case
discussions on matters
are times when
impartiality can
So to give
13
I think I tried to discuss on January 22nd
I do try my best in a small community
benefit
efforts
I raised
at the
Ms
for credit by the
law
Ms
it's
my clerks
to legalize
at the January 22nd
school
Middleton
Middleton
and I
Oregon
gay
was
one of
I was just
attended
State
And I
the
Bar
CLE
It
It
was
43
sponsored
by the Oregon
Oregon School
School
or University of
of
And generally
of Law
it
was a lecture
Windsor the holding
and the difficulty
face
clients
trying to advise
end
At the very
is I
made me nervous
the very
ballot initiative
end
10
to volunteer
11
because
12
campaign
redefining marriage
up
to stay and sign
And I
if
people
15
questions about I was willing to share
and repeatedly with
were aware
the
in favor
of a
spoke asking people
kind
talking about
The other issue that's
And at
and I
left
part of a political
14
16
practitioners
I said what
My clerks
guess those are the
that
that
to be campaigned
we did not want to become
13
on the history of
and this is where
don't like
somebody
ACLU
the
been
of events
that I
am
of and they had
them
addressed
both by the
media is the fact
that
17
notice
18
19
plaintiffs
20
child
21
anyone under
22
Mr
Eastman
23
you
know we are white we are male we are exactly the same
24
age I believe
25
well
in this case in that
It's
I am
with I guess at least the male
true
I am gay
and raising a
I guess we do share characteristics
the age of
35
I think
they
would
say that
and I share more personal characteristics
53
or close
We
have
to
it
worked
I think
our whole
To
So
we are both
life
in the
law
44
both been
advocates
We have
public
defender I know
But the fact
4
5
characteristics
the
years on criminal
cases
of me to
10
both
like
know as a
you
to sometimes
take
that
I have
that
the plaintiffs
gay men appear
share
in front of me all
cases on family law cases
sent people with
prison and I haven't
we have
me
given
of the case changed
if
the posture
13
certainly understand
14
of any possible
a thought
to the fact
irrelevant
I would
Certainly
certainly
duty as a judge to be aware
my ongoing
conflict
So I did want to address that
because
it
was
notice
With
17
on civil
very similar characteristics
in this case it's
12
raised by
the
So to
15
on
sometimes setting
time sometimes with their families throughout
11
16
what it's
me
with
We have
you all
18
leave
hanging
19
deny intervention
with
my just
20
Federal Rule
21
court in certain circumstances
22
nonparty
23
right or by permission of the
24
proposed
25
requirement under
intervenor
of Civil
litigation
bench
Procedure
am going to
opinion
24 allows
the
to permit intervention
Intervention
court
it
of a
can be of
The burden
to demonstrate that
rule
am not going to
a big surprise
and here is
in ongoing
is on the
meets the
45
The Ninth
1
2
whether
intervention
guided by practical
is appropriate the
court
a four part showing under
make
am going to focus
application
has a significant
property
on the first
Rule
or the transaction
24
Of the
is
four I
Whether
the proposed
interest
that
by right must
prongs
two
protectable
should be
considerations
and equitable
The parties seeking intervention
10
that in determining
Circuit has held
the
intervenor
relating
the subject
to the
of this
action
Intervention
11
court
24 b
Rule
Nonetheless
is discretionary
12
with
13
the
14
three prong showing that the motion is timely that it
15
an independent
16
or defense
17
law or
18
19
20
21
this
under
court the proposed intervenor
must satisfy a
for federal jurisdiction
grounds
and the main action
its
has
claim
share a common question
of
fact
So the threshold
question
The Geiger plaintiffs
Greisar
and Greisar
Geiger Nelson
Greesar
MR
PERRIGUEY
23
THE
COURT
24
Brought this action

challenging
is timeliness and the
findings
court makes the following
22
25
to allow for consideration
Greisar
Greisar
Greisar
the definition
Duehmig
Thank
you
on October
Sorry
15th 2013
of marriage found
in the Oregon
of
46
Constitution
statutes
The Rummell plaintiffs
2
3
and the Oregon
West
which
include
Rummell
Chickadonz
MR
ISAAK
MR
JOHNSON
THE
COURT
action
identical
Chickadonz
Chickadonz
19th 2013
on December
10
2014
11
would
12
summary judgment
13
for April
At the same
Their challenges
consolidated
the cases
court
The dispositive
22nd
ruling on
motion hearing
was
agree
and I
be
16
hearing on the matter and only hearing
this
the case posture
The plaintiffs
filed
was set
19
plaintiffs
20
summary judgment on March
The Rummell
That
was going to
the dispositive
on the
final
matter
18th 2014
18
That's
plaintiffs
the Geiger
filed
their motions for
4th 2014
Prior to this case ever being
21
on January
for dispositive
15
17
were
23rd 2014
And that
under
their
time the parties agreed that this matter
be submitted to the
14
and Tanner filed
to the Geiger plaintiffs

The court
Chickadonz
filed Attorney
22
General Rosenblum in an amicus
23
took
24
couples
25
October
of
brief to the Ninth
Circuit
a clear position that quote The exclusion of same sex
2013
This occurred
in
47
On February
20th 2014 having
to the Rummell complaint
answer
announced
Oregon marriage laws based
appellate
publicly that
just filed
Attorney
the state would
their
General Rosenblum
not be defending
the
on their interpretation of recent
decisions
That
same
day
the proposed
intervenor
National
Organization for Marriage announced
Attorney
General Rosenblum
constitutional
10
duty
proposed
intervenor
12
the attorney
13
defend
that quote
closed
her
quote
As early as January
11
the
25th 2014 counsel for
was calling
general to uphold
for the Oregon governor and

their oath of office
and
the Constitution of Oregon

Defendants
14
Kitzhaber Rosenblum and Woodward
15
filed
their response
16
March
18th 2014
17
the position
18
should
19
Oregon's marriage laws restricting marriage to one man and
20
one woman could
21
constitutional
22
decisions
23
24
25
that
be granted
to summary judgment
In their response
plaintiffs
because
no longer
motions on
the defendants
the defendants
believed
pass scrutiny under
By April
1st 2014

On April
took
this court
that
the federal
appellate
had received
amicus
groups
21st 2014 so just two days prior to our
48
dispositive motion hearing counsel
intervenor conferred
intervention
hearing
At
5
6
with
and delaying
11 04
pm
On April
plaintiffs
counsel
the April 23rd
on the
was
for the proposed
evening
summary judgment
21st 2014
of April
filed
22nd 2014 the proposed intervenor
a motion to delay the April 23rd hearing
denied as untimely and argument
10
regarding
That
motion was
was set for today
to take
up the issue of intervention

The proposed
11
intervenor
12
reason for failing
13
intervene
14
dispositive motion hearing
to notify
sooner than the
The proposed
15
16
of the attorney
17
April 23rd hearing
has provided
the court
40 hour
intervenor
general's
The proposed
18
of its
windrow
no credible
intent to
prior to the
had a clear
understanding
position two months prior to the
intervenor
reason for failing
20
its
21
until as they stated in their brief only days ago
22
their own
23
Oregon members
25
organization
to determine
has submitted no credible
19
24
filed
had significant
whether
any Oregon
and protectable
member of
interests
By
Proposed
intervenor
chose
not to file
or even
an amicus
a simple
49
notice
So I am finding
2
3
as to their intent
to the court
untimely
With
has
intervenor
unidentified
county
intervenor submits have
this
among
worker
its
right the proposed
of
approximately 100 members an
in the wedding
voter
significant
that
the proposed
protectable
interests in
case
10
The court
and the existing parties are unable
the degree
of the members protectable
11
determine
12
because
13
their identities
14
genuine
15
have
16
regarding protective
17
declarations
18
proposed
19
by the parties and by the
20
anything other than conclusory
21
intervenor
22
is
the proposed
intervenor
has
And I understand
issues of concern
that
chosen
there
intervenor
interest
not to disclose
are
the proposed
But rather than hold a dialogue with
under
to
think
intervenor
may
the court
orders or requesting to file
seal or in camera discussions
the

court
One of the proposed

36 in
to ascertain
statements
members is
2004
of the proposed
a voter
24
the outcome
of a case is of a general interest
25
significant
protectable
that
who voted
voters interest in
23
interest
The
standing on
would
and not a
allow for
50
intervention
One of proposed
2
3
as a clerk
appearing
particular
in a county
The clerk
capacity
who
works
is not
as a representative
of any
or local government
The proposed
in Oregon
in an official
county
intervenor
has provided
little
information as to what the clerk's
protectable
in this litigation
he or she may be required
to perform a job duty that
other than that
10
religious objection
11
grievance
12
It
to
they might have
no matter how
sincere
a wedding
15
religious objection
16
what service
service
provider
to
does not confer
standing
who
intervenors members works as

also has a general
same sex marriage
It
moral or
is unclear
the member provides
The case here is about
17
or
case
One of the proposed
14
a moral
Such a generalized hypothetical
is not at issue in this
13
interest is
marriage
know
18
Mr
19
but this case is not about
20
married many couples
21
Hawaii they fly off to their hometown or their parents
22
town to take
23
there
24
to get married and yet they come
25
ceremonies here in
Eastman you have tried to clarify
are
over
their formal
who
gets
the years
vows
this in your
to eat
cake
in Oregon
and vice
versa
brief
I have
who
fly
off to
mean
assume same sex couples who go to Washington
Oregon
here to take
their vows and
51
Nothing
about
a ruling I make
that
laws that
consumers based on sexual
is
Nothing about a ruling I
make
is going to change
will
change
forbid businesses from discriminating
orientation
The
the Oregon
against
harm such as it
already exists
Discretionary intervention
The proposed
intervention
marriage
intervenor
discretionary
in order to provide the defense
to Oregon
laws quote that the government itself
10
raising but is
11
of the
12
of government
13
Branch
14
it
day
not
is that
and it
closed
be
the Executive
Washington
17
and I
18
it's
19
lobbying
20
I want to focus
21
approximately a 100 members
22
a representative
am not
I
I
the Executive
the law the
Branch
Executive
then someone has to do
16
fact
if
us
The National
DC
should be
The argument at the end
is unconstitutional
should
15
quote
is not willing to defend
believes
based
political
lobbying
is a
organization
mean I am just stating what I
and
I think
mean obviously the ACLU is a political
organization
well but in terms of intervention
as
on that
number
because
is
I am not finding that that is
of Oregonians
More significantly
23
seeks
24
answerable to the electorate
25
directors
of the National
the Executive
of Oregon
Mr
Branch
is
Eastman
and the
are
not
52
It
be remarkable
would
opinion
following
for a court
the
to substitute
Hollingsworth
Executive
organization
the legal interpretation of Oregon's elected
Branch
of government
simply because
Oregon citizens
going
political
case that
that
disappointed by the lack
12
but I
13
with
a third party
14
It's
hard for me to really get
15
members given
17
the lives of
posture
are not
of a
are probably
of adversarial debate
am not prepared to substitute
it's
And
the posture
So it's
official
intervention
many Oregonians
11
16
disagrees with
group
lobbying
I know
by the
interest
impacts
Its timeliness and its
to be held in abeyance
10
a private
the organization
This is an Oregon
with
the
they
Branch
degree phantoms
a clear idea of these harmed

have
case
an Oregon
the Executive
to some
case
in this
been
It
presented
will
in
remain an Oregon
case
18
The motion to intervene
19
Mr
20
appreciate
21
know
Eastman I do appreciate
your briefing
thank
is denied
You
your arguments
are a smart
guy
and I
you
you
22
All
right
23
MR
EASTMAN
24
THE
COURT
25
MR
EASTMAN
Your
Honor if
may
Yes
because
we need
to request
53
stay
and we'd
This is an immediately appealable

like a stay pending
COURT
THE
Okay
MR
JOHNSON
THE
COURT
MR
JOHNSON
The
appeal
stay will
Your
of your
be
order
denied
Honor may I make one
comment
Yes
in terms
of your factual
findings
I believe that the Geiger plaintiffs
10
brought
12
amended their memo on February
13
motion for summary judgment on February
15
the date that
16
motion
the county
COURT
THE
17
18
correcting
19
quickly
that
18th
March
4th date is
You
are correct
I was scribbling down
Thank
you for
a lot of notes
Okay
MR
factual
They
18th and we also filed our
I think the March 4th date
14
20
originally
their motion for summary judgment in January
11
21
order as you know
PERRIGUEY
Your
Honor there was one other
issue
Yes
22
THE
COURT
23
MR
PERRIGUEY
24
order from Michael Jordan
25
plaintiffs
You mentioned
The
state
actually
issued the
the day after the Geiger

the
Rummell
plaintiffs
in your
54
Aah
THE
COURT
MR
PERRIGUEY
So that's
modification
THE
COURT
right
that
All
Okay
Anything
All
right
Thank
THE
CLERK
Court is
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank
you
will
allow
correction
just a slight
The
else that
proceedings
14th day of
have
you very
in
mistaken on my
much
recess
were concluded
May 2014
this
dates
55
I hereby
transcript
certify
of the
that
the
foregoing
correct
oral proceedings
above entitled matter to the best of my skill
dated this 15th day of
is a true and
had in the
May 2014
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sKristi L Anderson
Realtime
Reporter
and ability
STATEMENT
Case
OF SERVICE
No A131173
Organization for Marriage Inc
Title National
Geiger
et
al
Type of Document
In Opposition to Application
Response
to Stay
Judgment Pending
Appeal
Date documents were emailed June
2014
Date documents were mailed by overnight
Name
UPS
delivery June
addresses and email addresses of individuals
John
2014
served
Eastman
co Chapman University Fowler

School
of
Law
Orange CA 92866
877 8553330
jeastmanchapmanedu
Anna
Joyce
Sacftor
Office
eneral
of the Attorney
1162 Court Street
General
Oregon Department
NE
Salem OR 97301
503 3784402
annajoycedojstateorus
Mary Hazel
5625
SW
Williams
California Street
Portland
OR
97219
maryhwilliamsmsncom
5034079048
Katharine
Office
von Ter Stegge
of the
Multnomah
County Attorney

Portland
OR
Suite 500
97214
Katharinevontersteggecomultnomahorus
of Justice
Roger
Harris
5000
SW Meadows Road
OR 97035
LLP
Suite 400
Lake Oswego
503 9681475
rogerhbclawyerscom
Lea Ann Easton
Dorsay
1
SW
Easton LLP
Portland
OR
97204
503 7909060
leastondorsayindianlawcom
ElizlSeth
American
Civil Liberties
Foundation
Grefrath
Union
From
Johnson
To
Potter
Sent
6 2 2014 9 41 30
Subject
RE
Thomas
Sheila
Perkins Coie
Jr
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
AM
checking
Sheila
By
way
the
on a more
One
the paper
personal note
of those
great
please give our condolences
Oregon
to
We
Anna when you see

her
saw
the article
in
figures
Tom
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Monday
Johnson
Subject
We
perkinscoie
com
mailto sheila
June 02
doj state or us
potter
2014 9 34 AM
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins

received
Lea Ann Easton
Coie
checking
it
make
and
got
it
but
it
Mary
now
and
didnt
if
m
you
Thanks
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
or written
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
you have received
that
idential
this
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
we
regulations
including
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
privileged
otherwise
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
me
230 DISCLOSURE
that
is
IRS CIRCULAR
intended
NOTICE
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 2 2014 9 43 04
Subject
FW
Conrma
on from Clerk
From Danny
Sent
Bickell
Monday
Steve Shapiro
Cc
jeastman
Subject
RE 13A1173
Geiger et al
response received
supremecourt
gov
2014 9 31 AM
chapman edu
von terstegg
AM
NOM
Joint
mailto dbickell
Katherine
13A1173
that Plain s
June 02
To
Sheila
doj state or us
anna joyce
doj state or us
michael casper
doj state or us
anna joyce
doj state or us
Lea Ann Easton
leaston
Roger Harris
michael casper
co multnomah or us
Lea Ann Easton
NOM
Geiger
et
al
Steve
Your email with a ached response was received
Thank you
Danny
Bickell
From
Sent
To
Steve Shapiro
Monday
Danny
Cc
SSHAPIRO
mailto
aclu
org
2014 12 26 PM
June 02
Bickell
chapman edu
jeastman
Roger Harris
co multnomah or us
Katherine
von terstegg
Subject
RE 13A1173
NOM
Geiger
et
dorsayindianlaw
com
al
Danny
memorandum
Respondents
a ached
Hard copies are
conrm
receipt of this
Steven
National
in
opposi on to the applica on for a stay addressed to Jus ce
being sent to the Court and the pares by overnight
also
email
ma
Kennedy
il
in
d appreciate
the above case

if
is
you would
Thanks
Shapiro
Legal Director
New
125 Broad St
212 549 2611
www
This
message
may
that
this
From Danny
To
York
NY
sshapiro
10004
aclu org
aclu org
reply email
Sent
contain
Bickell
Thursday
information
message
has been
is
confidential
inadvertently
mailto dbickell
May 29
Roger Harris
that
or
legally
transmitted
to
supremecourt
2014 4 30 PM
privileged
you and
gov
If
ou
delete th

is
email
from
your
recipient
system
please
immediately
advise
the
sender by
Cc
Steve Shapiro
Subject
michael casper
NOM
RE 13A1173
doj state or us
Geiger
et
chapman edu
jeastman
al
Roger
Thank you
for
your email and voice mail
applica
on by 1 00 p
Danny
Bickell
From
Sent
To
Roger Harris
Tuesday
roger
mailto
nt to le
ce Kennedy has been no ed of your inte
a reply in support of your
rd
June 3
hbclawyers
com
2014 3 54 PM
Bickell
sshapiro
Subject
ET
May 29
Thursday
Danny
Cc
Jus
aclu
org
michael casper
RE 13A1173
NOM
up
Geiger
et
doj state or us
jeastman
chapman edu
al
Danny
This
mail is
follow
support of the pending
to
my
earlier
Application
responding submissions
for
1 00 p
voice mail that Applicant
Stay
We
Tuesday
will
do so
NOM
wishes to
not later than
rd
June 3 Thank you
for
reserve
24 hours
the right to
following
file
the deadline
your consideration
and
reply in
for
the
assistance
Roger K Harris P C
Attorneys
and Counselors
T 503 968 1475
5000
From Danny
Sent
To
28 May
sshapiro
Subject
D 503
F 503 968 2003
SW Meadows
Road
Bickell
Suite
400
596 2910
hbclawyers
Lake Oswego
mailto dbickell
com
Bio
vCard
OR 97035
supremecourt
gov
2014 12 16 PM
aclu
13A1173
org
michael casper
NOM
Geiger
et
doj state or us
Roger Harris
jeastman
chapman edu
al
Counsel
Jus
ce Kennedy has called for a response to the applica on for stay
Please feel free to contact
Thank you
Danny
Bickell
202 479 3024
me with
any ques ons
Responses are d
ue Monday June 2 2014 by 1pm ET
Potter
To
Jenny
Sheila H
MADKOUR
Diaz
kdiaz
jenny
m morf
multco us
aclu or org
Jennifer
Amanda Goad
Middleton
LGBT
agoad
aclu
hbclawyers com
jeastman
roger
Sent
6 2 2014 9 48 23
Subject
mail service
Katharine
Lea Ann Easton
JMiddleton
agoad
org
VON TER STEGGE
Perkins Coie
Misha Isaak
justicelawyers
aclu org
agoad
multco us
katevts
Perkins Coie Kevin
com
aclu org
aclu
From
rsaxe
Roger
org
Harris
chapman edu
AM
Geiger
Counsel
Deputy
SG Michael
our response
didn
can
If
make
be the
it
way
you haven
shot
at
to
Casper sent
the
to
others
or is
with large
received
re sending
an e mail to
motion for stay
it
your copy
Sheila
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
of
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
97201
673
5026
just taking
everyone
like
on this list
the
a loooong
e mail got
time to
this morning
to
some
people
slowly seep
into
with a copy
and
of
either
in boxes
As
OCR d PDFs
Thanks
Sheila
Deputy
Sounds
Justice
Suite
410
would
you drop
me a line or give
me a call
and
ll
take
From
Potter
To
Sheila
Thomas
Johnson
Sent
6 2 2014 9 49 24
Subject
RE
will
do that
From
Johnson
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
Thomas
Sheila
RE
02
H
Jr
Perkins Coie
Isaak
appreciate
it
Misha
Perkins Coie
checking
thanks
June
R
AM
know
Jr
2014
she ll
Perkins
Coie
mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
9 42 AM
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
checking
Sheila
By the
saw
way
the
on a more
article
personal
in the
paper
note
One of
please give
our condolences
those
Oregon
great
to
Anna
when
you see her
We
figures
Tom
Thomas
1120
Johnson
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
CELL
503
503
E MAIL
97209
727
914
346
4128
8918
2176
From
Potter
Sheila
Monday
June
Johnson
Subject
We
LLP
2176
Sent
To
Coie
Floor
Portland
FAX
Perkins
Street
mailto
02
Thomas
com mailto
2014
sheila
potter
doj state
Coie
Isaak
com
or us
9 34 AM
Jr
Perkins
Misha
Perkins
Coie
Lea
Ann
Easton
checking
e mailed a service
now
m worried
let
me know
if
that
copy
the
of
our response
e mail didn
you received
it
this morning
make
it
to
and
any of
the
got
it
external
but
Mary
didn
recipients
and
Would
you
Thanks
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
attachments
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
IRS
NOTICE
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 2 2014 10 08 40
Subject
RE E
Sheila
H
AM
mail service
Geiger
haven
still
received
anything
from Michael
and
there s nothing
in
my
filters
Sheila
security
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Potter
Sheila
Monday
mailto sheila
June 02
potter
doj state or us
2014 9 48 AM
MADKOUR
jenny m morf
multco us
katevts
Tom Johnson Perkins Coie Misha Isaak Perkins Coie Kevin Diaz kdiaz
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com rsaxe aclu org Amanda Goad LGBT
agoad
aclu
agoad
aclu org
Roger Harris roger
hbclawyers com
jeastman
chapman edu
To
Jenny
Perriguey
Subject
E mail
multco
aclu
or
Lea Ann Easton
us
org
Jennifer
agoad
org
aclu
Lake
Middleton
org
Geiger
service
Deputy SG Michael Casper sent an e mail to everyone on

to the motion for stay
a loooong
just taking
If
you haven
re sending
Sounds
like the e mail got to
time to slowly seep into in boxes
received your copy
some
would you drop
me
this
list
Counsel
people
As
this
morning with acopy of our response
and
can be the
a line or give
either didn tmake
way
me a
with
to others
or
is
OCR d PDFs
large
and
call
it
llI
take a shot at
Thanks
it
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
Avenue
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Suite 410
97201
971 673 5026
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
6 2 2014 10 09 30
Subject
RE E
Did
you get
the
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Ann
Potter
Subject
copy
June
Sheila
RE
that
Easton
Tom
mailto
02
AM
mail service
2014
Geiger
forwarded
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
10 09 AM
E mail service
Geiger
Sheila
I
still
Lea
haven
received
anything
from Michael
and
there
s nothing
in my security
filters
Ann
From
Potter
Sheila
Sent
Monday
June
To
Jenny MADKOUR
STEGGE
katevts
Johnson
JMiddleton
rsaxe aclu
mailto
2014
jenny
sheila
Coie
kdiaz
potter

katevts
Misha Isaak
aclu
or org
justicelawyers
org mailto
doj state
Perkins
Jennifer
com mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
jenny
multco us
Coie
Kevin
Amanda
Diaz
Katharine
Lake
kdiaz
VON TER
Perriguey
Tom
aclu
org mailto
agoad
aclu
org
agoad
aclu
org mailto
agoad
aclu
org
Roger
Harris
roger
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com
LGBT
aclu
roger
Easton
justicelawyers
Goad
aclu
com mailto
Ann
Middleton
JMiddleton
agoad
E mail service
m morf multco us
Lea
agoad
Subject
or us
9 48 AM
multco us mailto
Perkins
or org mailto
H
02
org mailto
com
agoad
jeastman
aclu
chapman
org
edu
Geiger
Counsel
Deputy
SG Michael
our response
didn
can
If
make
be the
it
way
you haven
shot
at
to
Casper sent
the
to
others
or is
with large
received
re sending
an e mail to
motion for stay
it
Sounds
just taking
everyone
like
on this list
the
e mail got
a loooong
time to
this morning
to
some
with a copy
people
slowly seep
into
and
of
either
in boxes
As
OCR d PDFs
your copy
would
you drop
me a line or give
me a call
and
ll
take
Thanks
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
of
971
OR
Suite
673
5026
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
Trial Counsel
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 2 2014 10 11 02
Subject
RE E
Sheila
mail service
AM
Geiger
No
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
Monday
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 10 09 AM
June 02
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE E mail
Did you get the copy
From
Sent
To
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
Potter
Subject
Geiger
service
that
mailto
June 02
Tom
forwarded
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 10 09 AM
Sheila
RE E mail
service
Geiger
haven
still
received
anything
from Michael
and
there s nothing
in
my
filters
Sheila
security
Lea Ann
From
Sent
Potter
Sheila
Monday
mailto sheila
June 02
potter
doj state or us
2014 9 48 AM
MADKOUR jenny m morf multco us Katharine VON TER STEGGE katevts

Tom Johnson Perkins Coie Misha Isaak Perkins Coie Kevin Diaz kdiaz
JMiddleton
justicelawyers
com
rsaxe
aclu org Amanda Goad
LGBT
agoad
aclu
agoad
aclu org
Roger Harris roger hbclawyers com
jeastman chapman edu
To
Jenny
Perriguey
Subject
E mail
multco
aclu
org
or
us
org
agoad
Lea Ann Easton

Jennifer
aclu
Lake
Middleton
org
Geiger
service
Deputy SG Michael Casper sent an e mail to everyone on

to the motion for stay
a loooong
just taking
If
you haven
re sending
Sounds
like the e mail got to
time to slowly seep into in boxes
received your copy
Thanks
it
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
Fifth
OR
some
of Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
971 673 5026
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
would you drop
me
this
list
Counsel
people
As
this
morning with acopy of our response
and
can be the
a line or give
either didn tmake
way
me a
with
call
large
and
llI
it
to others
OCR d PDFs
take a shot at
or
is
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
6 2 2014 10 14 18
Subject
RE E
Rrrr
Stupid
hard
copy
From
Lea
Sent
Monday
To
Ann
Potter
Subject
computers
Easton
June
Sheila
RE
What
mailto
02
AM
mail service
2014
Geiger
will
do
LEaston
then
is
take
dorsayindianlaw
a walk
over
to
your office
with your
com
10 11 AM
E mail service
Geiger
No
From
Potter
Sheila
Sent
Monday
June
To
Lea
Ann
Subject
RE
Did
the
Lea
Sent
Monday
Ann
Potter
2014
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
10 09 AM
E mail service
From
Subject
mailto
Easton
you get
To
H
02
copy
Easton
June
Sheila
RE
that
Geiger
Tom
mailto
02
2014
forwarded
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
10 09 AM
E mail service
Geiger
Sheila
I
still
Lea
haven
received
anything
from Michael
and
there
s nothing
in my security
filters
Ann
From
Potter
Sheila
Sent
Monday
June
To
Jenny MADKOUR
STEGGE
katevts
Johnson
JMiddleton
rsaxe aclu
mailto
2014
jenny
sheila
Coie
kdiaz
doj state

katevts
Misha Isaak
aclu
or org
justicelawyers
org mailto
potter
Perkins
Jennifer
com mailto
rsaxe aclu
org
jenny
multco us
Coie
Kevin
Amanda
Diaz
Katharine
Lake
kdiaz
Perriguey
VON TER
Tom
aclu
org mailto
agoad
aclu
org
agoad
aclu
org mailto
agoad
aclu
org
Roger
Harris
roger
hbclawyers
hbclawyers
com
LGBT
aclu
roger
Easton
justicelawyers
Goad
aclu
com mailto
Ann
Middleton
JMiddleton
agoad
E mail service
m morf multco us
Lea
agoad
Subject
or us
9 48 AM
multco us mailto
Perkins
or org mailto
H
02
org mailto
com
agoad
jeastman
aclu
chapman
org
edu
Geiger
Counsel
Deputy
SG Michael
our response
didn
can
If
make
be the
it
way
you haven
shot
at
to
Casper sent
the
to
others
or is
with large
received
re sending
an e mail to
motion for stay
it
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
your copy
Thanks
Potter
Portland
Phone
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
97201
673
5026
just taking
everyone
like
on this list
the
a loooong
e mail got
time to
this morning
to
some
people
slowly seep
into
with a copy
and
of
either
in boxes
As
OCR d PDFs
Sheila
Sheila
Sounds
Justice
Suite
410
would
you drop
me a line or give
me a call
and
ll
take
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
To
H
Perkins Coie
Sent
6 2 2014 10 26 12
Subject
RE
Thomas
Johnson
Perkins Coie
Jr
Lea Ann Easton
AM
checking
Thanks
From
Isaak
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
We
Sheila
It
is
Perkins
June
RE
did
Here
Misha
02
H
Coie
2014
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
9 35 AM
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Lea
Ann
Easton
checking
is
a very
our brief
good
filed
brief
just now
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Potter
Sheila
Sent
Monday
June
To
Johnson
Subject
We
Coie
LLP
2086
H
mailto
02
Thomas
2014
sheila
potter
doj state
Coie
Isaak
or us
9 34 AM
Jr
Perkins
Misha
Perkins
Coie
Lea
Ann
Easton
checking
e mailed a service
now
m worried
let
me know
if
that
copy
the
of
our response
e mail didn
you received
it
this morning
make
it
to
and
any of
the
got
it
external
but
Mary
didn
recipients
and
Would
you
Thanks
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
attachments
the
230
we
Coie
contents
DISCLOSURE
To
inform you that
LLP
to
penalties
promoting
be used
that
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
marketing
NOTICE
This
communication
and
it
compliance
unless
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
in error
cannot
any attachments
without
by the
taxpayer
another
party
privileged
please advise
the
copying
otherwise
any attachments
be used
to
may contain
expressly indicated
including
or recommending
or any attachments
received
and
ensure
herein
message
If
received
avoiding
have
law
and
by
any
from your system
CIRCULAR
Perkins
you have
keep
regulations
contained
information
applicable
that
reply e mail
IRS
NOTICE
not
intended
taxpayer
for the
under
Internal
the
any transaction
or other
sender
is
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
and
contents
IRS
any federal
tax advice
or written by
purpose
of
Revenue
or matter
or
ii
addressed
information
immediately
Thank
Code
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
6 2 2014 11 38 58
Subject
FW
Attachments
Geiger
This
one
ought
to
come
From
Hamilton Mary
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
Let
Sheila
if
1834
Response
through
better
2014
attached
me to
rename
Secretary
to
Jesse
Davis
Carson Whitehead
Sheila
1515 SW Fifth Ave
Suite
Phone
Fax
971
971
97201
673
673
only
pdf
no OCRing
just the
PDF
brief has no attachments
Hamilton
OR
has no attachments
brief
11 18 AM
Legal
Portland
brief
you want
and
AM
Geiger 1834 attached
C
02
Geiger 1834
me know
Mary
June
Sheila
5030
5000
Potter
410
this before
you send
out
Mary
No
13A1173
In the
Supreme Court
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE INC

on behalf of
its
Oregon members
Applicant
V
DEANNA L GEIGER JANINE M NELSON ROBERT DUEHMIG
WILLIAM GRIESAR PAUL RU MIELL BENJAMIN WEST LISA
CHICKADONZ CHRISTINE TANNER BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION
FUND
Respondents
Plaintiffs
and

Oregon JENNIFER
WOODWARD
Governor of Oregon
in her official
capacity
as State
WALRUFF
in his official
capacity
as
Respondents
RANDY
Defendants
RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS

MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
DIRECTED
TO THE HONORABLE ANTHONY KENNEDY ASSOCIATE

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Continued
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM 753239

ANNA
JOYCE 013112
Solicitor General
MARY
Special
Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAMS
1162 Court
Street
911241
NE
Salem Oregon 973014096

Telephone
503
3784402
Counsel for Respondents
Defendants
Jennifer
MADKOUR 982980
JENNY
Office of the
501
Woodward
SE
Multnomah
Hawthorne
032300
County Attorney
Blvd
Suite 500

Telephone
503
9883138
Counsel for Respondent
Defendant
Randy Walruff
Counsel of Record
514
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOMs
II
burden
to obtain relief
from
this
Court
is
heavy
extremely
NOM
has failed to demonstrate a reasonable

Court
will
NOM
grant certiorari in this case
has
that this
to
will
motion
NOM
grant certiorari in this case with respect

to intervene
that this Court
would
legal standard
NOM
probability
grant certiorari to review a
when
discretionary ruling
failed to demonstrate a
Court
NOMs
the district
there
no dispute about the
is
court applied
that this Court

district
would
grant certiorari to
courts denial of
because none of
NOMs
NOMs
probability
review the
motion
members had a
to intervene
significant
NOM
this
NOM
will
Court
will
probability that
grant certiorari to consider the merits of the
courts opinion and judgment
14
has failed to demonstrate a fair

prospect
reverse
either the district
district
III
NOM
on
its
courts denial of
challenge
NOMs
motion
to intervene
proposed
courts denial of
NOM
of success
NOMs
protectable interest in
it
has a chance
successfully reversing the district courts

determination
14
as untimely and as not presenting a
intervenor with a significant
the litigation
to
courts judgment on the merits
to the district
that this Court

prospect
motion
that
NOMs
untimely
motion
of
discretionary
to intervene
was
15
NOM
18
it
NOMs
three
NOM
to intervene
members has
litigation
motion
has a chance
courts denial of
because none of
the necessary
Oregons
samesex marriage even
NOM
and could
establish the
if
NOMs
interest in the

prospect
on the merits of upholding
of
of success
constitutional
had any basis
necessary Article
III
ban on
to intervene
standing
for
an
appeal on the merits
IV
NOM
result
22
has failed to establish a likelihood that

irreparable
from a denial of a
harm
will
26
stay
APP
Conclusion
Appendix
Transcript
Geiger v Kitzhaber
613CV01834MC 613CV02256TC
Appendix
1435427
Motion
to
APP
et
al
Dismiss Geiger v Kitzhaber
11
27
et
al
56
Cases
Alaniz
Lewis Foods
Tillie
572
F2d
Cir
657 9th
cert denied 439
US
837
1978
15
Baker v Nelson
409
Conkright
556
US
810
12
v Frommert
US
1401
Elane Photography
309 P3d 53
Hollingsworth
2009
LLC v
NM
cert denied
133
1972
134
Willock
2013
S Ct 1787 2014
19
v Perry
S Ct
2652
2013
20
Maryland v King
133
S Ct
2012
Munaf v Geren
553
US
NAACP v New
413
Rostker
2008
13
York
US
Outdoor Media
506
674
345
1973
Group Inc v
F3d
895 9th Cir
City of
Beaumont
2007
10
v Goldberg
448
US
1306
650
F2d
United States
133
1980
v Ford
114243
9th Cir 1981
v Windsor
S Ct
2675
2013
23

643
F3d
Whitewood v
No
10
701 9th Cir
Assn v
Natural Res
Def
Council
2011
24
Inc
10
Wolf
131861 2014
WL
2058105
MD
ill
Pa May 20 2014
22
23
18
11
Constitutional
Or Rev
Stat
106305
Or Rev
Stat
659A403
US
Const Art
III
and Statutory
Provisions
19 20
iv
21
RESPONSE OF OREGON STATE DEFENDANTS IN OPPOSITION

TO
APPLICANTS MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
The
National
the district
courts order denying
litigation
NOM
litigation
caseeven
around
no
its
it
NOMs
motion
1 NOMs
to intervene in the
underlying
to intervene
attempted
to defend
the states
by
in the
The
state
matterhas
the defendants
samesex
carefully considered
of
this
centered
that there
marriage
Attorney General has been clear from the outset
about the states position
primary complaint throughout
disagreement with the position taken
on which
NOM
courts order and judgment on the merits of that
Application at
months before
rational basis
Oregons
Inc
is
ban
this litigation
and analyzed the
possible justifications that have been offered in

support of similar bans in other
cases including
The Attorney
all
of the arguments
General
with Oregons
NOM
seeks
to
have
this
determined that those justifications
legal policies
in the area
Court consider
would be
of domestic relations
But the Attorney
General did not acquiesce when confronted with the two

complaints
case and stand silently
outcome
NOM
as
defendants
has contended
presented
justifications
failed in light
by or collude
to the
for the states
district
inconsistent
filed in this
with plaintiffs to reach a

particular
The
Attorney General on behalf of the state
court a thorough analysis of the

potential
samesex
of Oregons other valid
marriage ban and
legal choices
why
to treat
samesex
couples
and
their families with

respect
conducted
a thorough analysis of the claims

presented
constitutional
rights
ban on samesex marriage
of plaintiffs
Thus
legal officer
and
NOM
for
court abused
not
as
no party with standing
NOM
if
it
asserts because
NOMs
to appeal the
Walruffcontend
district
when
motion
The Oregon
defendants
its
and they oppose
NOMs
does not satisfy the high standard
motion
by the
lacks
to intervene
to continue
And
this
with standing to
Ellen
have been
it
chief
claim that the
Rosenblum
state defendants joined by County Assessor
court judgment
application
Oregons
as that asserted
judgment has any plans
appealGovernor John Kitzhaber Attorney General

Woodward
state
NOM
from enforcing the ban
were to prevail on
matter beyond the district court
Jennifer
and found Oregons
seeks a stay of a final

judgment
any appeal even
its
court also
reached a similar conclusion on the merits
but because
district
this case is unusual
standing necessary
district
to violate
and enjoined the defendants
plaintiffs
and dignity under the law The
Randy
fully resolved
for a stay
and
by the
NOMs
it
seeks
NOMs
burden
to obtain relief
Relief in inchambers
only in extraordinary
from
stay applications
cases and
this
Court
such
is
as this
extremely heavy
one should be granted
denial of such applications
is
the
norm
US
Rostker v Goldberg 448
The burden
is
1980 Brennan
1306 1308
on the moving party to demonstrate
probability that this Court will grant certiorari
Court
then reverse the decision
will
harm will
1401
1402
from the denial of a
result
2012 Roberts
CJ
in
much
those
requirements
II
NOM
has failed
Court
will
NOMs
motion
judgment as
has
that this
NOMs
scheduled
district
moved
`fair
prospect
that the
a `likelihood that
irreparable
stay Maryland v King
chambers
same
133
Ct 1
NOM
US
cannot satisfy
any of
motion
for a stay
of
this
for a stay
of the order denying
for a stay
of the
distinct
district
courts
analyses and
NOM
final
fails
either decision
demonstrate a reasonable
probability
will grant certiorari in this case with
respect to
motion to intervene
hearing on the plaintiffs
it
Dist Ct Dkt
motions
NOMs
represented
No
115
case
The two require
failed to
Court
this
and the motion
litigation
a `reasonable
of them
treat the
to intervene
NOM
NOM
in
grant certiorari in
largely the
chambers
demonstrate a reasonable probability that
to meet the necessary criteria
less all
to
arguments
in
chambers quoting Conkright v Frommert 556
2009 Ginsburg
NOMs
below and
any
for
summary judgment
significant
pp 4549
courts
The
that
NOM
protectable interest in the
hearing transcript attached
as
Appendix
NOMs
motion
Id
Appeals
NOM
The
at
district
and
to intervene
5253
NOMs
this
at
NOM
that
certiorari to address either
NOM
33 NOM
reviewed
district
for
abuse of discretion
is
to
is
denial
ruling
The
that
of
had any
it
This Court
when
district
NOMs
See
is
its
motion
to
court
significant
unlikely to grant
district
exercise
court
Because those findings are
there
is
will
of
no dispute about the
to intervene as
413
untimely
US
the circumstances
345
And
sound discretion unless
not be disturbed on
made
critical
all
its
court applied
motion
be determined from
in the
NAACP v New York
abused the courts ruling
Footnotes omitted
to the timing
Court would grant
standard the
be determined by the court
discretion
Id
court failed to
accept

probability
courts denial of
1973 Timeliness
request for a stay
also argues that the district
show
failed to
discretionary
The
of those claims
that this
legal
NOMs
with respect
protectable
to the
argues that the district
allegations
NOM Application
erred by determining
appealed
request to stay the denial of
NOM
Court
nonconclusory
intervene
NOM
Before
NOMs
court denied
extensive
is
366
it
is
that
review
findings in support of
to the question
to
whether
this
Court
its
would
defendants
The
15 2013
district
court found that the Geiger

complaint
No
December 19 2013
Id
22 2014
and
responses
to
filed
defendants
47 The
The Rummell
district
for
motions
On
The
February
was
filed
on October
was
complaint
filed
on
parties filed their materials
the Oregon
Attorney
answer and announced
that the state
would not support the samesex marriage ban and would instead
state
was no
defendants
rational
filed their
basis that
response to the
marriage laws
restricting
marriage to one
man
pass scrutiny under the federal constitutional
appellate decisions
briefs
April
1 2014
at
23 Id On
48 On
April 21 at
April
it
22
as
NOM
support the
motions for
summary
believed that
and one
woman
Oregons
could no longer
for the previously
pm NOM
1104
filed
ban Id
summary judgment
three citizen
groups
and the briefing was concluded
hearing on April
Id
Id By
would
that the
judgment should be granted because the defendants
intervene
for
20 2014
motions on March 18 2014 taking the position
amicus
of its discretion the
court consolidated the two lawsuits
23 2014 Id
defendants
at
The
set a schedule
be argued April
the state
p 45
115
46
at
according to the courts order
General
courts exercise
summarize them in some detail
Dist Ct Dkt
on January
the district
filed
had
filed
scheduled
its
motion
to
a motion to delay the

April 23rd
untimely Id
All of those facts are supported
the records and
NOM
does not dispute
asserts without discussion that the
courts denial of the motion
NOMs
factual allegations
for a stay in the
reasons
it
as
offered for filing
its
NOMs
any of them
Ninth Circuit
to intervene
Ninth Circuit
courts rejection of
by the courts docket
NOM
likely
a bit
when
to intervene
NOM
justifications
more
claimed
to intervene less than two full

days prior to the scheduled
because
case
it
was unaware of
Ninth Cir Dkt
Contrary to
NOMs
No
assertions
allegations the courts
them
lacking
The
16
NOM
analysis demonstrates
of the
that
Ct Dkt
No
announced
115
p 46
publicly
on
The
Id
at
detail about
it
47 That
the
that
its
filing
hearing
was
motion
timely
would take in the
it
considered
NOMs
factual
them but found
is
unconstitutional
case in October
2014
that the state
that the
was
set forth
2013 Dist
court also found that Attorney General
February 20th
motion
its
in a different
defending the Oregon marriage laws based on
appellate decisions
to credit
entire record before the court
exclusion of samesex couples from marriage
Ninth Circuit
In
court disregarded
court found that the position
in an amici brief to the
simply
Motion for Emergency Stay
that the district
in credibility in light
district
33
the position the state defendants
14
in
Application at
provided
motion
NOM
In this Court
because that court failed
NOM
true
is
and the pleadings
Rosenblum
would not be
their interpretation
of recent
same day the proposed intervenor the
National
Organization
Rosenblum
is
The
court
district
shamefully
to
uphold
calling
their oath
of
as
quote Attorney General
early as January
for the
office
that
her constitutional
abandoning
also noted that
proposed intervenor was
general
Marriage announced
for
quote Id
duty closed
25 2014
counsel
for
Oregon governor and the attorney
of
Oregon
Id
Those findings make
Appeals will overturn the
motion to intervene
it
very unlikely
district
that the
courts discretionary ruling
was untimely
Similarly
unlikely that this Court would grant certiorari
where the
legal standard
NOM
is
that
NOMs
would appear even more
it
to
review a discretionary
ruling
not in dispute
has failed
that this
district
to establish
Court would grant
courts denial of
because
none of
NOMs
a reasonable
probability
NOMs
motion
members had
the
to intervene
a significant
The
significant
for the
NOMs
district
courts determination
NOM
Ninth Circuit
motion
to affirm the district
to intervene
heavy burden of establishing
ground or
that
that this
as
untimely
that the
Court would
likely
failed to establish
courts order
NOM
any
As
ground
with the denial of
has similarly failed to meet
Ninth Circuit would reverse on
that
grant certiorari to review that issue
its
NOM
of
its
members
unidentified
49
sought to intervene based on claims
The
concluded
court correctly
general interest and not a significant
Id
intervention
at
4950 The
planners general moral or
not be affected
make would
other jurisdictions would
dealing with
those
Oregons
to
couples
seek to celebrate
review those
legal
it
claims
certiorari in a case without
petitioner
is
denied 134
Ct 1787
In this Court
county clerk
because
their
couples
The Court
115
in
LLC v
who
could marry in
marriages in Oregon and
some
may be Id
to assert his or
completely
would
309
separate case
right
standing
P3d
of
grant certiorari to
a similar petition
issues about the
at
her objections
and not with the
provisions
Willock
wedding
any ruling the court would
recently denied
any vehicle
focuses
district
of a
53
for
of the
NM
2013
cert
2014
NOM
But the
that the
couples
unlikely that this Court
Elane Photography
interest is
of this planner whatever they
samesex
No
samesex marriage would
samesex
antidiscrimination
marry
Dist Ct Dkt
court also concluded
wedding planner had standing
to providing services to
wedding industry an
voters
that the
in the litigation
potentially seek out the services
if the
voter
religious objection to
by the issues
in the
protectable interest that would allow for
5051 Even
worker
unidentified
county
district
an
Oregon
in
asserted on behalf of three
it
largely
on the member
court found that the clerk
whom
is
it
asserts is a
not appearing
in
an
official
as
capacity
Dist Ct Dkt
government
in that the clerk
record
the circumstances
only
No
115
remains anonymous
correctly
found
litigation
Id
that the individual
Contrary to
that the
performing
its
assertions
That finding
his or her
unknown
that
generalized hypothetical grievance
to
is
local
supported by the
Because the clerk presented
he or she might have a moral
his or her duties the district
lacked
a significant
in the district
court
county clerk appears
anonymous
county or
particular
p 50
of the clerks position
or religious objection
Court
of any
a representative
in
court
legal interest in the
NOM
some
now
official
argues to this
capacity
and
therefore presents an unsettled legal

question about whether a government
official
has standing
refuse to do
question
it
state
is
defendants
in
political
in this
any
advocacy
will not
member
NOM
make
That an
33
Whatever
capacity
group
is
officials
is
not claiming
or even acting in his or her
make arguments
county
clerk
is
that the state
personally a
does not suffice to raise the unsettled

legal question
claims and as a
result
NOM
own
trying to step into the role that the
in order to
unknown
state
the merits of that

legal
case The county clerk
official
are already filling
defendants
NOM
Application at
not presented
Rather a
of
defend a states marriage laws when
so NOM
standing or appearing
name
to
has not established any reasonable
probability that this Court would grant certiorari to address it
that
10
Finally
its
efforts
The
Dist Ct Dkt
moot
district
Under Ninth
relief
intervenor
certiorari
State
its
motion
Defendants
law
on
have
filed
to intervene
Motion
to
Outdoor Media Group Inc
appeals the denial of
a motion to dismiss
because
judgment
if
That
Cir
1981
dismissing
is
omitted Where
citation
no party appeals
Def
because
Council
moot an
intervene because the underlying
Inc
Thus
it
is
likely that the
in order for
NOM
Ninth
effective
506
a proposed
in a case that the district
643
relief
Ford
is
moot once
the
650
F3d
701 9th Cir
can be granted
to the
F2d 114243 9th
appeal from the denial of a motion to
litigation
was
voluntarily dismissed
therefore
NOMs
West Coast Seafood
no effective
as
now
is
City of Beaumont
motion to intervene
its
Processors Assn v Natural Res
proposed intervenor
it
Dismiss
court subsequently decides that

proposed intervenors appeal
2011 so holding
May 19 2014
on
900 9th Cir 2007 internal
court issues final
hurdle in
the denial of the motion

to
in this matter
state defendants
of
bears an additional
there exists no present

controversy as to which
can be granted
F3d 895
The
Circuit case
moot because
NOM
court entered judgment
to the denial
Appendix
that
Courts grant of
No 120
challenge
See
appeal
worth pointing out
to obtain this
intervene
NOMs
is
it
Circuit will
No
courts judgment and
dismiss
NOMs
appeal as
to establish that this Court will

grant certiorari
moot
it
must
11
also establish that a dismissal of
Circuit precedent
NOM
its
appeal as
moot
Ninth
presents a legal issue worthy of this Courts consideration
has offered nothing in support of that

required
clear
following
NOM
has
Court
will
failed to establish
showing
a reasonable probability that
grant certiorari to consider
this
courts opinion and judgment
The road
for
NOM
Oregons
ruling that
achieve
NOMs
motion
its
precedent
of
discretionary
to intervene
the district
lacked
right to
of the highly
was untimely
even more challenging than
defendants
motion
2 convince
deferential
that three individual
motion
NOMs
courts
district
that
NOMs
court
6a
members of
motion
NOM
obtain a reversal of
to intervene
have the existing judgment and order withdrawn
persuasive
must

Appeals that
NOMs
additional proceedings in the district
NOM
to dismiss
review of the
courts ruling denying
for the
the Ninth Circuit Court
erred in determining
persuade
violates the

Appeals to
moot
determination that court
a significant
the district
as
state
courts
district
In order to reach this Court
convince
and deny the
in spite
is
plaintiffs
appeal of the motion to intervene
of Appeals that
ban on samesex marriage
to intervene
of the following
all
disregard
rights
Court on the merits of the
this
constitutional
denial of
to reach
establish
for purposes
of
offer the district court
argument to uphold the states ban on samesex marriage
that has
12
the district
if
to
and thoroughly
court were to reach the same
presume would occurestablish Article
new
courts
considered by the district
judgment
appeal and only then
to the
III
NOM
conclusionas
Court
this
to grant certiorari
from
appeal from the Ninth Circuits decision on the merits in this case
almost exclusively
focuses
that this
on
that final
NOM
step
NOM
dealing with a similar issue to the one that
casewhether
a states ban on
lines
NOM
whether
1972
law
this
may
Application at
to those
15
that
will grant certiorari in this case
same
issues might
parties
and
come
different
It
show
is
NOMs
NOM
to establish
1219
in a case
certiorari
marriage violates a plaintiffs
in
it
fails
the
the subject of
litigation in this
1213
at
is
Along
certiorari
in this litigation
US
that
a reasonable
mere
the same
810
remains good
possible that this Court
case
rights
to decide
Baker v Nelson 409
presented
While
NOM
is
one day grant
satisfy the requirement
Application at
Application
Courts summary dismissal
of similar questions
NOM
samesex
NOM
and even there
one day grant
may
or
appears to
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but lose
convince
court
may
possibility does
not
simply not enough
to suggest
that the
before this Court in a different case

involving different
state interests
13
NOM
correctly notes that this Court previously granted
to be presented
are likely
its
way through
issue that arises in this
various district
and
circuit
again grant certiorari to consider what
holdings
questions
Court would grant
if
NOM
the
difficult
success
on
potential
many
See
if
this
to
it
Court were
presumably would reach again
553
consideration
must
judgment in
NOM
the district
That remote
this
case
Even
have
this
But
before ever
674 690
more
court reached
possibility is far
establish in order to
legal
2008
about the `likelihood
from another
in the hypothetical
obtain
body of
unlikely due to
merits
to take a case
could
will
those legal issues
US
says nothing
manages to have the merits again considered
possible that
Court
less likely that this
would need
Munaf v Geren
even reaching the
broadly reverse the conclusions
NOM
much
it
the merits other than

making such success
At best
would be
make
victories
impediments
works
it
can predict with any certainty
certiorari in this case in order to reach
could achieve
this
to
other cases
legal issue as
Whether
courts
throughout this case
reaching this Courts docket
same
at this time a consistent
not something the defendants
is
the procedural
even
is
And many
case
certiorari
in
Oregonand
future in which
by the
district
summary
and
jurisdiction
NOM
courtthen
it
reversal for further
from the reasonable
probability
Court issue a stay of the order and
if the obstacles
NOM
must overcome
to
have
this
of
14
Court grant
certiorari
Court should refuse
Court
will
III
NOM
on the merits in
to grant a stay in this case
has
Again
insurmountable
because the other
NOM
district
conflates
courts denial of
courts denial of
courts judgment
the two rulings
NOMs
ruling on the merits of plaintiffs
that
intervention
it
would
Without that
courts judgment
district
courts denial of
it
motion
on
this
factors the
NOMs
motion
seeks
has
have
to
and
failed
to challenge
likelihood of success
appeal as
to
the
to
district
meet
on the merits
its
courts
burden of
of
the merits of the
of overcoming the
and even
moot
Court stay
this
to the denial
challenge
to intervene
its
motion
on the merits
setting aside the difficulty
survive the pending motion to dismiss
a sufficient
its
that this Court will
NOMs
to intervene
can never hope
Even
it
NOM
claims
likely prevail
district
show
less
demonstrate a fair prospect
failed to
intervene or the
showing
were
consider weigh against the issuance of a

stay
reverse either the district
the district
this case
NOM
if
NOM
were to
has failed to
to warrant a stay
from
this
demonstrate a fair prospect of success
on
Court
NOM
its
has
failed to
challenge
intervene
to the district
as untimely
and
courts denial of
NOMs
motion
to
as not presenting a proposed
intervenor with a significant protectable
interest in the
litigation
As
district
grounds
discussed
above
courts denial of
in support of its
its
NOM
faces
motion
many
challenges
to intervene
ruling that
NOMs
The
in overturning the
district
court
provided two
that
15
NOM
failed
to establish that
any of its three members has a
must show
that
the district
courts denial of
that
it
has a fair prospect
for either
showing
For
Court
to stay that ruling
NOM
of overturning both of the grounds
motion
to intervene
make
has failed to
It
for
ground
NOM
NOMs
this
significant
has
failed to establish
successfully
that
has a chance
it
of
determination that
NOMs
courts discretionary
motion to intervene was
untimely
NOM
the district
Circuit
this
is
case
a likelihood of success
on an appeal from
courts discretionary denial of intervention as

untimely The Ninth
unlikely to overturn that discretionary
when
to intervene
is
determination
timely
is
on the
facts
of
measured by the
prejudice to the
existing parties from any resulting delay and the reasons for the
length of
delay
439
Alaniz
US
intervene
that the
district
Tillie
F2d 657
Lewis Foods 572
837
1978
was
resolved relatively quickly
As
set forth
659 9th
the litigation
above
in
would be
resolved on
heard in April 2014
as early as January 2014
No
NOM
sought
which
it
was
115
p46
Yet
evident
the court
NOM
to
determined
Thus and
summary judgment motions which

Dist Ct Dkt
denied
given that the defendants
ban on samesex marriage was unconstitutional
court found as fact
Cir cert
as the
that the case
set to
did not
file
be
its
16
motion to intervene
until 3 8 hours before the diapositive
hearing which had been scheduled
court found as fact the determination
General Rosenblum
unconstitutional
had
to
itself
for
many months
acknowledged
that
that she
intervene
on the eve of the summary judgment hearing
simply
determine whether
failed
it
and as
any Oregon member of
its
its
As
motion
No
115
the district
p48
Given
that the case
court did not abuse
its
held a
was
discretion
to
the district
court
for failing to
organization had significant
protectable interests until as they stated in their brief only days
Dkt
early as
had been considering
filing
submit any credible reason
to
Attorney
would not defend the ban on samesex
But
NOM
legal officer
marriage was
marriage
found
again as the district
2014 when Attorney General Rosenblum
announce
NOM
by the states chief
been known
NOM
since February
press conference
And
Oregons ban on samesex
similarly
Id And
October 2013
intervention
that
months
for three
summary judgment
fully
ago
and
Dist Ct
briefed and ready to

argue
in denying
NOMs
request to
intervene at that point in the

proceedings
NOM
asserts that the district
allegations with respect to
is
wrong
Each of
its
timing as true
the nonconclusory
NOM
its
nonconclusory
Application at
allegations that
it
set forth in its

by the district court and the defendants
that they
should not have been
But what
NOM
ignores
33 NOM
is
motion
to
are not arguing
that the district
court
17
made
evidence
and
of
findings
above and beyond what
fact
set forth
by
the parties in the litigation
No
when Dist Ct Dkt
those
115
pp
findings are not supported
Instead
appears that
nonconclusory
allegations as true
NOM
credible
NOM
is
wrong again
by
believes
and
as true is separate
nonconclusory
allegation
is
nonetheless
canand
conclude
sum
concluding
abused
on the basis of
timeliness
It
does not contend that
could not
accept
reasons for
whether
didaccept
insufficient
from the question whether
NOMs
that
The
allegations as true but
to support intervention
motion was untimely
NOM
fails
the district
district
with the
effort to reverse
difficulty
it
court on the question
has not given this Court

any reason to conclude
in its
court in
at later points in a
proceeding
to grapple
a discretionary ruling by the
by
While other courts have not
different facts
prospect of success
delay were not
its
to accept
its
that its justifications for

waiting to appear in this case
NOMs
their discretion
in overturning
its
the record reflects no abuse of discretion
that
occurred
a credible reason for choosing to

delay action
in fact
In
that the court
The question
allegation
court
about what events
with
the record
find that
nonconclusory
district
alleged in accordance
4548 And NOM
additional
it
NOM
that
it
faces
of
has a
as
fair
untimely
18
NOM
has
failed to establish
successfully
NOMs
motion
to intervene
members has
three
that
has a chance
it
of
courts denial of
because
none
NOMs
of
the necessary interest in the
litigation
NOM
the district
has not established
a fair prospect
that
of success
NOM
As
significant protectable interest in the litigation
based
motion
its
individual
to intervene
who voted
for
on the purported
clerk working
objection to
those
in a county
in
samesex marriage Whatever
individuals
might have
to other
plaintiffs
litigation
under the
legal claims
is
members of
NOM
was no remedy
three
members
interests
in
which
NOM
The
to the
district
and those of
its
whom
The
moral and
had any
NOM
of three members an
a wedding planner and a
has a religious or other
religious or other personal
of the
that
litigation
at
objection
significant
hand
the rights of
resolution of plaintiffs
religious objections
specific
of these
three
court found in favor of plaintiffsbut there
for their injury that
or carried out by
it
above
unconnected
that
peoples marriages provide no
protectable interest in the actual subject
The
argument
36 amending the Oregon
samesex marriage
Oregon each of
its
show
described
interests
Oregon Ballot Measure
Constitution to add the ban on
failed to
on
could be ordered against
NOM
members were
or those three
NOM
members
or any of
NOMs
never at issue in the litigation
The
its
19
remedy
who
instead
was addressed appropriately
government defendants
were enforcing the samesex marriage ban
It
is
conceivable
a claim related to
some of
that
samesex
the three individuals might

eventually have
marriages occurring in
necessarily be a completely different
case
object
to
samesex
might be asked
couples
Oregon
but
it
would
claim than has been adjudicated
For example the wedding planner with a
services
all
to the
religious objection to providing
to provide
and might be the

subject of a complaint under
those services
might
Or Rev
Stat
persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the
accommodations
accommodation
account
advantages
without
facilities
and privileges
age
if
full
659A403
and equal
any distinction discrimination or
the individual
Photography 309 P3d
is
18 years of age or
53 challenge
of challenge could happen with or without
their litigation
Even
married
to
if
samesex
restriction
on
in
to
See also Elane
of similar statute
Oregon
or other
in
New
samesex marriages That
plaintiffs
succeeding
marriages were not legal in
in another jurisdiction
have a ceremony
older
to application
Mexico by wedding photographer opposed
services
of race color religion sex sexual orientation national

origin marital
status or
couples
in this
type
on the merits of
Oregon samesex
could seek out those

wedding planning
But the wedding planners
samesex
couples
interest is
can marry but whether
20
the wedding planner can refuse to

provide
services to
any
samesex
couples
because of their sexual orientation
license to a
samesex
who
has a personal objection to

providing a
couple might be asked to do
so might
not be able to obtain

any accommodation from the county
then have
some
basis to challenge
other
samesex
like the voter
couple
seeking
But even
motion
if
this
that the three
Article
or to this Court
fair prospect
Court were
For
court
standing
of success
We
to
county
having a
clerk might
at the plaintiffs
The county
NOM
clerk
any basis
or any
member
to
assume
NOM
for
could provide
has
still
failed to
to appeal to the
reason
of the emergency stay
purposes
it
with a basis
to
make any showing
that
it

Appeals
NOM
on appeal
voted
and lacks standing
to
that additional
The member who
2013
to obtain a license
members of NOM
III
as
court case
interevene at the district
would have
would not be directed
and the wedding planner does not

give
intervene in the district
such
the refusal of the

county to provide an
but that litigation
accommodation
The
sign the license
official
and might
object
appeal
for the
challenge
samesex marriage ban

to the
Hollingsworth
has no greater
ban than any other voter
v Perry
133
in
Oregon
Ct 2652 2668
have never before upheld the standing of a

private party
to
defend
21
the constitutionality of a state statute
when
We
here A wedding
decline to do so for the
may
time
first
not be asked to provide services to a
their marriage
lacks Article
marriage on appeal
a license
provide
official
objection to
individual
The same
to a
samesex
is
samesex
who
but
be a county clerk
to
seeking to celebrate
who may
be asked
marriage but they have no connection
to
the wedding planner and the
their objections
may
lead to other
concerning whether they have a right to not play a role in
litigation
of that
samesex marriage For both
who happens
who may or
true for a county clerk
couple
planner
couple
standing to challenge
III
have chosen not to
state officials
samesex
claims of a right to
marry
to plaintiffs
NOM
the district
courts denial of
untimely and
protectable
the
many
motion
NOM
its
motion
to intervene
showing needed
NOMs
to intervene
interest in this litigation
challenges
a fair prospect of success
any of
its
if
necessary to overturn the district
NOM
has not demonstrated that
courts
for this
final
Court
judgment
to issue
NOM
NOM
courts
it
has
has a significant
could
denial
has Article
failed to
of stay of the motion
appeal of
motion was
members
Moreover even
in its
overcome
of
III
make
its
standing
the
to intervene
22
samesex
NOM
has failed
to
demonstrate a fair prospect of success
marriage even
Oregons
NOM
if
had any
basis to intervene
could establish the

necessary Article
the
on
merits
NOM
The arguments
Application at
federal courts
Wolf
No 131861
2014
For purposes
cases
defend bans on samesex marriage
None of those arguments have been
to consider
of
and address
WL
this
and
standing for an appeal
presents to this Court are the same arguments
in an effort to
1931
III
on
ban on
constitutional
similar
2058105
emergency
MD
challenges
successful
NOM
in the
See Whitewood
Pa May 20 2014
13
collecting
motion for a stay the defendants
focus
on two primary points
First the arguments
samesex marriage were

withstand judicial
NOM
would present in support of Oregons ban on
not hidden from the district
reached the conclusion
scrutiny they carefully
jurisdictions to support similar bans
district
court
NOMs
defendants
took very seriously
in support of the
arguments would
fit
under
made
abandoned
state
their
that the state
law
marriage
ban
and
to develop
considering not only possible arguments
samesex
in other
The record shows
their obligations
present the states legal position
made
analyzed the arguments
claims that the state defendants
in this case are

unsupported
While
states ban could not
and they presented
obligations
could be
that the
court in this case
but also
how
that
those
with other legal

policies of the state as well as the
23
of the
obligation
all
Thus
Oregonians
NOM
now
the district
samesex
marriage ban
is
in
in the area
authority
v Nelson
Baker
As
is
at
1924
NOMs
The second
large and growing
premise of the
defining
to
relationship
As
participation
point concerns
body of
with
NOM
2013
it
as a
its
conclusion
in the litigation
NOMs
this
and there
would
reliance on what
social science research
onemanonewoman
is
little
reason
alter that conclusion
samesex
point
its
core a statespecific
claim
this
recognized that states
Court
the
describes as
its
no
the central
conclusion that
`rational
Application
at
court an equal protection
may be
to
NOM
marry
couples
it
contradicting
institution has
remains at
on
NOM
the court
carefully
courts equal protection holding
nation but
in reaching
any legitimate government interest
about the rights of
and the
court or on appeal
district
marriage
of
2830
apparent from the district courts opinion
to believe that
of
to support a traditional
necessary
definition of marriage and a

preferred parenting arrangement
Application
rights
court was fully informed of the

arguments
Courts prior summary decision
that
arguments
to protect the federal constitutional
puts forward about the states general
this
marriage
state defendants
in United States
have a great deal of
a concern
The
latitude
in
claim
across the
defendants
v Windsor
24
133
agree
Ct 2675
determining the
24
laws
that will
govern
marriage and domestic relations within the state
while the state defendants
But
in the
plaintiffs
context of all of Oregon law in the area of

marriage and domestic relations
NOM
would
defense
jettison
many of the
states legal principles
of the ban on samesex marriage
in order to
put forth
Such an argument finds no

support
in Windsor or
any other of this Courts cases
NOM
raised
by
their biological
state to prohibit
be raised by
samesex
why
Some
only to
by
marry but
those
NOM
couples
state
for the values
defendants
would be
at
do best when
rational
2425
for a
This line of
in this
Oregon has adopted
restricted the ability
as the
law of the
of samesex couples not
with the children

being raised
or to adopt children or care for children

through the state
Oregon has not
To
the contrary Oregon has

long
recognized the value of samesex couples
Stat
it
NOM Application
also to establish legal relations
fostercare system
Or Rev
that
that children
should not be permitted to intervene
of the
have severely
states
show
and mother and
parents
to stand in the shoes
shows a complete disregard
state
tradition
marriages to increase the likelihood that children will
their biological
litigation
father
and
1063051
The
district
as parents
court
carefully
and as families See
considered
Oregon public
In part
Footnote
continued
25
policy and
No
longstanding values
its
2026 NOMs
118 pp
to intervene
and appeal
this
what Oregon has chosen
arguments
to
case
if
this
Court agrees
Oregon
court undertook
considered
carefully
Courts case law develops
Branch
it
may
to consider
if
they are permitted
courtcompletely
area exercising
in
an appeal
it
its
ignore
wellestablished
all
case
fully resolve the
analysis the district
of Oregon law as
it
should
If this
to call into question that

analysis
in a future case for
to challenge
in another
may not
The equal protection
such a manner
be appropriate
whether
to consider
samesex marriage
merits of any litigation in
Oregon
Dkt
See Dist Ct
Courtand
any appellate
to establish in this
dealing with a states ban on
for
to this
decision
over domestic relations within the state
sovereign authority
Thus even
in reaching its
the injunction
Oregons
that
Executive
now
prohibits the
samesex
from implementing
defendants
marriage
the states laws in such a
That decision should
rest entirely
way
as to
deny
with the states Executive
continued
This state has a strong interest in

promoting stable and lasting families including
the families of samesex
and
their children All
couples
families should
Oregon
provided
ability
to
with the opportunity

achieve
ORS 106300
to
obtain necessary
their fullest
potential
Short
to
title
106340
benefits and responsibilities granted or
law with the values embodied
in
legal
be
protections
and
status
and the
Certain privileges immunities rights
imposed
the Constitution
are intended to better align Oregon
and
public policy of this state and to

further the states interest in the promotion of stable and
lasting families by extending
benefits protections
and responsibilities to committed
by the laws of
this
state
to
samesex
partners and their
married individuals
and
their
children
26
Branch which answers
analyze
and
someday
IV
NOM
has
result
from a
harm
is
the
proper party to
raised should this Court
surrounding these issues
a likelihood
that irreparable
harm
will
denial of a stay
that
NOM
must
establish to obtain
will result from denial of a

stay
the required
to the three
of Oregon and
any new questions
failed to establish
element
final
irreparable
none
potentially address
alter the legal landscape
The
make
to the citizens
NOM
showing
members
it
points to a
Again
a stay
NOM
is
that
has failed to
number of possible harms
purports to represent in this litigation
This
but
is
presumably because they have notbeen harmed by the samesex marriages

taking place in Oregon and will not be
harmed
if those
marriages continue
to
take place
Instead
NOM
NOM
Application at
marriages
It
is
not up to
day months
the district
harm
and the samesex couples
Oregonians
Oregon
NOM
its
NOM
3437
now
courts orders here
are
now
With respect
it
citizens or the couples
to seek
to the state
or years from
who
in a
a stay based
and
way
its
the state
on
simply
who
its
is
not up to
are entering into
purported concerns
citizens should the
that calls into question
law change
one
the validity of
27
NOMs
Whatever
have considered
defendants
may
be
further litigation
issues resolved in this
problem
samesex
an
which
in
now
there
obtaining
alternative
to
many
come
as will
decisions
to stand without
such
other states
down
striking
some
revisiting
Application at
there
of the
thorny
as California
and
an appeal on the merits
no uncertainty confronted by Oregon contrary
NOM
the
the states ban on
37
Instead
samesex
to
couples
legal officer are willing to take
whatever
courts ruling along with those samesex couples
this litigation
samesex
and deny the
couples
in
If the
risks
it
rights the district
is
states
accompany
not for
NOM
court found
Oregon
Conclusion
NOM
of the
are
registered domestic partnershipsbut
federal benefits that attach only to

marriage
should be granted to
stay
might require
members
someday
state is willing to address that
marriageOregons
to seek to prolong
left
three individual
access not only to the state benefits previously offered

through
Governor and chief
the district
is
See
assertions
also to the
The
judicial
marriage were
For
now
in this area that
case
its
the potential harms and risks that
should that day ever
Pennsylvania
NOMs
considerations for
has failed to meet

any of the criteria
district
courts denial of
NOMs
it
motion
must
establish to obtain a
to intervene or the district
28
courts order and judgment
NOMs
motion
in this
case
The defendants
ask
this
Court
to
deny
for a stay
Respectfully
submitted
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM 753239

Attorney General
ANNA
JOYCE
013112
Solicitor General
MARY
WILLIAMS 911241
annaj oyce
doj
state orus
maryhwilliamsmsncom
for Defendants
Attorneys
Jennifer
Woodward
JENNY
MADKOUR 982980
032300
Office of the
Multnomah
Attorney
501
Hawthorne
SE
County
Blvd

Telephone
503 9883138
Counsel for Defendant
Randy Walruff
AMJblt5355748
Suite 500
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
6 2 2014 11 39 19
Subject
FW
Attachments
GEIGERapp
And
the
appendices
Sheila
Appendices
pdf
AM
APP
THE
HON
DEANNA
NELSON
GRIESAR
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
MICHAEL
JUDGE PRESIDING
McSHANE
GEIGER and JANINE

ROBERT DUEHMIG
and WILLIAM
Plaintiffs
No
613cv01834MC
No
613cv02256TC
JOHN
10
11
12
in his official
KITZHABER
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
in her official
in her
official
capacity as State
Statistics
Oregon Health
and RANDY WALDRUFF
in
Authority
his official
capacity
as Multnomah
County
Assessor
Defendants
13
14
15

LISA CHICKADONZ and CHRISTINE
TANNER
FUND
16
Plaintiffs
17
v
18
JOHN
19
20
in his official
KITZHABER
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
in her official
JENNIFER
in her
WOODWARD
official
as State
capacity
Health
Statistics
Oregon
and RANDY WALDRUFF
in
Authority
his official
capacity
Oregon
21
22
23
County
Assessor
24
Defendants
25
APP
REPORTERS
TRANSCRIPT
MAY
WEDNESDAY
PAGES
PROCEEDINGS
OREGON
EUGENE
OF
14
2014
55
COURT
Kristi
Anderson
97401
Oregon
Eugene
REPORTER
541
4314112
KristiAndersonorduscourtsgov
9
OF
COUNSEL
10
APPEARANCES
11
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

DEANNA
ROBERT DUEHMIG
AND WILLIAM
GEIGER
GRIESAR
12
14
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works
LLC
Portland OR 972051718
15
Fax
13
503
2271928
503 3342340
Email lakelawworkscom
16
Lea
17
18
19
Easton
Easton LLP
Dorsay
1
SW Columbia Street
Suite 440
Portland OR 97258
503
7909060
7909068
Email leastondorsayindianlawcom
Fax
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ann
503
JANINE
NELSON
APP
FOR THE CONSOLIDATED PLAINTIFFS

BASIC RIGHTS
PAUL RUMMELL
BENJAMIN WEST
LISA CHICKADONZ
TANNER
Jennifer
Middleton
Johnson
Schaller
Johnson
975 Oak Street
Suite 1050
OR 97401
Eugene
541
6
EDUCATION FUND
AND CHRISTINE
6832506
Fax 5414840882
Email jmiddletonjjlslawcom
Kevin Diaz
American
Civil Liberties
Box 40585
OR 97240
Portland
Union
PO
9
503
2276928
10
Email
11
Misha
Isaak
Perkins
Coie LLP
10th Floor
OR 972094128
Portland
12
13
ACLU
kdiazacluororg
AD
503
14
7272086
3462086
Email MIsaakperkinscoiecom
Fax
503
15
16
17
18
Johnson
Thomas
Perkins Coie LLP
10th Floor
Portland OR 972094128
503
7272176
503 7272222
Email TRJohnsonperkinscoiecom
Fax
19
20
21
FOR THE DEFENDANTS

JENNIFER
WOODWARD
JOHN
KITZHABER
22
Anna
24
Joyce
Oregon
Department
1162 Court Street
Salem OR 97301
25
Email
23
503
of
Justice
NE
3784402
ELLEN
ROSENBLUM
AND
APP
Sheila
Potter
of Justice
Oregon
Department
Special
Litigation Unit
Suite 410
OR
97201
Portland
971
6731880
971 6735000
Email sheilapotterdojstateorus
Fax
5
10
FOR
THE
DEFENDANT
RANDY
WALDRUFF

By phone
Suite 500
501 SE Hawthorne Blvd
OR 97214
Portland
503
9883138
9883377
503
Fax
katevtsmultcous
11
Email
12
14
Madkour
Jenny
Office
of the Multnomah
County
Suite 500
Portland OR 97214
15
Fax
13
503
Attorney
9883138
9883377
503
Email
jennymmadkourmultcous
16
MARRIAGE
17
FOR
18
20
Leonard
Feldman By phone
Stoel Rives
LLP
Seattle
Suite 3600
Seattle WA 98101
21
Fax
19
OREGON
23
24
25
FOR
206
22
UNITED
6240900
3867500
Email ljfeldmanstoelcom
206
AMICUS
BRIEF
APP
FOR
FOR
THE
PROPOSED
INTERVENOR
DEFENDANT
NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION
INC
MARRIAGE
John
Center
Eastman
for Constitutional
Jurisprudence
co Chapman University Fowler School of
Orange CA 90807
877
8553330
Fax 714 8444817

Email jeastmanchapmanedu
Harris
Roger
5000
Meadows
Road
Suite 400
Lake Oswego
OR 97035
SW
503
10
Law
Fax
LLP
9681475
9682003
503
Email
rogerhbclawyerscom
11
GENERAL
12
INDEX
13
Argument
by
Mr
Eastman
Pages
14
Argument
by
Mr
Johnson
Pages
15
32
15
Argument
by
Ms
Potter
Pages
21
35
16
Ruling
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page
41
22
36
38
40
APP
PROCEEDINGS
COURT
THE
Thank
Ms Pew
THE
District
of
McShane
10
al
THE
12
So
the
14
their
16
18
So
like
to
make
we
than
lets
your
Rummell plaintiffs
21
behalf
case
Court
for
Honorable
the
Michael
the
et
you
by having
is
going
to
maybe each
represent
everyone
It
takes
more
itself
hearing
with
the
plaintiffs
if
youd
introductions
Your
and
23
MR
JOHNSON
only
Geiger
themselves
introduce
ahead
go
COURT
The
Thank
right
introduce
can
1301834
argument
who
THE
25
oral
group
22
clients
al
each
Geiger
our
the
Case
begin
the
my
for
set
could
today
20
of
our
District
we
MR JOHNSON
19
24
session
in
All
for
guess
sometimes
17
now
thought
interests
I
time
States
et
COURT
attorneys
15
call
to
United
time
the
is
Kitzhaber
11
of
morning
presiding
versus
13
is
Oregon
Good
like
youd
if
2014
seated
remain
everyone
CLERK
Now
Please
you
14
MAY
WEDNESDAY
Honor
will
also
Tom Johnson
for
be
today
speaking
the
on
plaintiffs
All
We
again
person
right
have
We
who
did
is
Thank
I
that
not
you
wont
last
here
introduce
time
today
is
all
of
APP
Mr Rummell
who
is
on
business
THE
COURT
Okay
All
right
For
MS
POTTER
Justice
Oregon
Department
will
Thank
Sheila
Potter
me
be
THE
COURT
All
right
10
All
right
For
the
11
MR
JOHNSON
12
with
13
Organization
me
Harris
Roger
for
14
THE
15
So
do
am
the
of
Department
the
Oregon
state
and
sorry
of
the
the
defendants
county
to
for
behalf
on
arguing
16
Johnson
defense
the
excuse
Mr
you
Justice
of
trip
17
and
the
would
All
law
19
briefs
to
20
strong
views
of
the
21
legal
issues
we
need
to
keep
to
some
T
to
am
going
going
to
pose
23
probably
24
the
25
intervene
burden
is
the
on
But
of
the
and
Eastman
National
intervenors
the
and
to
what
dont
want
focused
on
the
statements
in
the
discussion
hyperbolic
each
know
Mr Eastman
you
record
the
the
of
side
has
intervene
very
but
different
there
are
some
resolve
to
pose
some
more questions
National
will
Thank
briefs
keep
motion
So
22
John
into
briefs
minimum
McShane
right
read the
like
18
try
intervenors
Marriage
have
you
proposed
behalf
on
COURT
recite
is
Judge
Thank
ask
questions
to
Mr
Organization
then
the
other
am
Eastman
for
because
Marriage
parties
if
to
they
APP
have
So
comments
particular
Roberts`
Mr Eastman
blunt
fairly
He
We
of
constitutionality
officials
for
the
So
law
10
any
11
court
12
the
in
Executive
of
here
after
that
statement
that
you
allowed
fact
Branch
that
mischaracterizes
15
specifically
16
not
seeking
17
And
18
THECOURT
that
briefing
20
statements
21
overlapping
22
to
and
it
in
or
the
is
should
But
maybe
newspaper
that
be
if
24
defend
the
25
injuryis
and
state
to
do
the
to
there
is
federal
in
stand
think
about
is
for
behalf
to
it
are
defend
that
They
the
of
were
state
injuries
particularized
they
so
law
Honor
on
wont
the
in
your
up with
your
say
somewhat
it
somebody
has
us
MR EASTMAN
23
they
where
party
am mixing
says
Justice
Hollingsworth
continue
you
where
decline
good
Your
separate
the
to
still
intervene
to
defend
in
private
is
upheld
We
Hollingsworth
their
representing
Chief
before
statute
cite
can
Well
what
to
to
time
14
19
not
Eastman
Hollingsworth
state
chosen
MR EASTMAN
13
party
with
start
never
first
cases
or
has
have
in
have
private
standing
will
Mr
that
anything
holding
states
on
Well
statute
because
different
than
the
thats
right
But
seeking
party
has
particularized
in
the
shoes
standing
of
the
to
APP
attorney
represent
Hollingsworth
County
because
have
denied
was
the
But
have
itself
county
that
clerk
10
We
11
THE
was
not
not
But
court
before
seek
not
said
because
us
MR EASTMAN
13
COURT
14
How
well
capacity
you
Honor
Karcher
distinguish
you
may
May
issue
that
MR EASTMAN
16
its
think
17
actually
18
way
19
authority
20
Supreme
21
attorney
Karcher
under
Court
the
had
The
their continuing
24
but
25
injury
was
allowed
wouldnt
because
They
had
two
state
to
our
intervene
them to
involved
May
case
legislators
to
and
had
who
other
intervene
it
goes
our
no
than
when
the
state
the
defend
Court
of
intervention
they
Karcher
closer
had
Supreme
23
Well
much
May
general
22
it
do
there
law
the
official
any
Your
Well
didnt
intervene
to
seeking
in
was
intervene
to
clerk
county
COURT
the
the
the
Imperial
clerk
county
enforce
to
the
that
case
deputy
think
when
THE
dont
on
the
clerk
did
have
and
and
stage
that
in
to
claiming
clerk
prior
obligation
county
but
at
not
are
county
intervention
county
The
We
the
itself
independent
any
15
case
it
defend
state
the
12
to
general
had
no
the
United
after
they
longer
particularized
States
lost
any
injury as
rejected
their
offices
particularized
long
as
they
were
APP
10
10
in
those
Here
position
statewide
ruling
and
by
our
he
this
permitted
permitted
officers
as
in
acting
that
individual
14
clerk
15
have
16
court
17
seal
an
They
avoided
about
somebody
20
because
21
some
22
objection
23
that
they
county
your
And
declaration
simply
as
have
an
making
at
orders
have
a
know
in
seek
to
by
have
were
were
were
they
state
As
soon
standing
lost
made
appearance
at
about
They
some
couple
who
works
dialogue
with
declarations
have
point
and
they
personal
You
this
have
injured
issue
license
have
religious
objection
by
the
way
that
was
filed
am
I
not
know
striking
there
the
was
recent
motion
in
mean
declaration
current
it
under
We
been
as
case
this
in
is
clerk
your
statement
this
clerk
to
about
Oregon
having
A religious
most
bound
capacity
they
county
samesex
it
to
24
some
attempt
to
what
So
any
may
be
Well
not
works
would
Roberts
official
capacity
protective
who
19
in
that
Orechio
and
because
only
an
are
You
18
was
Justice
is
proceed
COURT
is
in
plaintiffs
Karcher
Well
THE
12
be
issued
MR EASTMAN
13
the
to
know
you
which
this
to
continues
would
court
lost
they
11
25
she
or
COURT
THE
clerk
county
injunction
10
positions
legislative
to
APP
11
11
strike
dont
who
forget
think
adds
it
moving
this
bit
target
But
relationship
relationship
in
between
clerk
your
am
not
the
12
are
13
well
14
those
15
mean
to
than
believe
declaration
giving
bit
clerk
your
is
who
well
us
it
allow
little
questions
somebody
official
Roberts
goes
reason
cases
want
to
17
represent
18
or
the
and
the
20
is
is
21
didnt
22
were
their
is
little
23
NAACP
Court
in
have
this
to
interests
the
same
is
then
wanted
who
to
the
their
seek
that
line
about
and
number
of
the
get
The
clerk
not
doctors
agency
cases
or
so
issues
to
wedding
provider
interests
disclosing
who
the
clerk
GriswoldConnecticut
in
confidential
contraceptive
disclose
of
where
discrete
the
think
number
large
we
problem
is
think
particular
are
agency
relationship
thirdparty standing
the
we
Alabama wouldnt
are
of
those
reason
reason
kind
on
minute
Alabama
a
of
vague
been
NOMs
the
and
and
on
any
government
wait
being
NAACP
first
There
24
are
capacity
agency
local
Well
The
disclose
that
in
unpack
So
19
we
There
voters
An
Hollingsworth
established
16
me
other
hearing
MR EASTMAN
11
25
leads
to
am going
more information
10
lot
another
get
But
whole
time
Every
we
clerk
which
more information
it
filed
married
customers
services
or
that
their members
cases
from the
whole
host
of
of
cases
that
specifically
say
Supreme
when
you
APP
12
12
have
confidentiality
that
might follow
situation
that
sets
standing
So
thats
him or
clerk
be
clearly
12
moved
13
that
14
be
15
order
is
16
comes
down
cite
in
19
clearly
as
an
that
in
brief
clerk
But
that
says
clerk
there
was
would
to
applied
statewide
official
injunction
the
know
clerk
had
not
of
that
when
it
may
well
because
it
the
finally
issues
state
think
the
language
standing
injunction
of
clerk
the
you
that
in
Perry
a
have
may well
the
So
now
us
with
question
capacity
23
clerks
behalf
those
claims
And
think
what
think
the
does
is
the
if
think
in
case
private
behalf
because
22
25
though
And
that
member
24
that
prior round
21
of
that
standing
own
thirdparty
who
think
is
to
going
there
be
would
standing
be
20
the
be
to
when
that
by
have
the
that
the
exactly
for
done
of
piece
address
our
The
going
So
bound
have
harassment
thats
opportunity
we
why
thats
different
18
the
up
lost
that
of
clerks
the
intervene
17
the
second
doesnt
Perry case
we
be
the
standing
11
to
yourself
would
herself
And
10
exposing
result
the
on
intervening
9
as
Now
about
got problems
is
very
these
being
is
can
that
clerk
by
concerns
about
harassment
member
allow
us
important
we
set
For
out
in
example
to
our
if
being
brief
a
her
in
raise
on
on
clerk
the
this
was
APP
13
13
going
to
after
it
would
had
decision
be
to
the
personal
here
could
because
resign
from
when
made
that
clerk
had
first
harm as
result
not
the
do
job
different
run
for
than
what
that
office
duties
official
the
of
job
not
COURT
THE
ever
havent
county
for
even
12
that
in
fact
13
Lake
County
14
information
to
15
harm
16
willing
17
individual
is
there
and
But
have
19
we
20
thats
got
going
MR
21
22
think
the
23
pleaded
are
we
real
way
happen
as
for
much
almost
no
Well
COURT
24
THE
25
MR EASTMAN
in
thats
nonpopulace
fairly
we
least
at
this
find
may
this
take
that
officials
County
for
use
in
hypothetical
particular
formulated
two
says
to
it
my word
the
for
court
is
everything
to
conclusory
Not
First of
things
you
motion
Not
data
him
to
Center
true
to
is
here
back
the
families registered
Lake
are
have
you
is
would
you
census
and
example
gay
know
or
the
at
How
of
name
population
able
be
you
EASTMAN
Southwest
facts
looked
we
mean
the
seal
County
not
might
phantom
to
if
accommodation
an
the
under
Lake
harm
harm
personal
that
know
ever
County
but
decide
make
to
18
Lake
one
large
county
even
from Oregon
being
would
imagine
like
someplace
it
us
given
mean
How
thats
that
know
11
forced
been
10
be
have
to
take
the
intervene
facts
conclusory
facts
though
but
all
well
APP
14
14
Thats
THE
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
MR
We
We
redacted
identifying
the
could
submit
the
Id
cant
But
have
official
13
in
an
who
is
official
the
brief
16
means
17
authorization
18
are
going
19
is
you
20
intervenor
21
parties
23
question
24
clerk
the
submit
like
declaration
county
without
county
know
you
the
is
declaration
of
part
from the
the
authorizing
from
the
intervene
to
clerk
county
There
the
is
county
other
represented
to
have
be
to
funds
the
in
our
reply
which
elected
independently
have
does
we
as
specific
be
authorization
are
They
purpose
not
the
of
if
they
which
so
thirdparty
here
on
COURT
we
into
1
1
clerk
expend
THE
22
and
names
identify
which
Well
doesnt
there
know
Id
actually
county
to
the
seal
under
something
to
EASTMAN
15
that
with
this then
propose
capacity
MR
14
me
submit
exactly
could
COURT
12
let
clerk
county
inquiry
beyond
could
we
THE
11
Well
declaration
because
are
They
could
with
am faced
Well
EASTMAN
problem
clerk
10
25
what
the
will
have
Okay
kind
issue
hear
of
Let
of
the
from the
me
jumped
hear
off
from the
of
substantial
parties
on
other
my Hollingsworth
harm to
that
the
APP15
15
Mr Johnson
do
MR JOHNSON
3
Yes
Lets
COURT
THE
interests
of
the
clerk
Organization
for
Marriage
talk
MR JOHNSON
Yes
From
of
brief
it
person
was
before
of
NOM
is
two
15
going
to
stand
in
16
going
to
also
then
17
office
of
20
21
interest
its
exercise
that
a
question
National
Honor
all
the
NOMs
brief
but
official
be
substantial
the
of
reply
conceded
reply
that
this
capacity
office
to
attempting
the
the
of
county
that
are
They
of
shoes
here
to
and
member
official
really borrow
is
attempting
our
their
adopt
do
say we
then
we
are
are
the
capacity
county
kind
the
they
are
personal
of
personal
trying
issue
issue
then
to
Its
or
personal
assert
really kind
through
of
that
is
free
issue
And
22
to
standing
that
And
18
had
the
member
Your
their
have
about
their
they
in
14
19
What
court
the
levels
that
would
What
13
review
here
not
It
was
seemed
11
12
first
go
Honor
Your
thats
10
to
specifically
want
you
the
23
is
doesnt
have
24
And
so
cant
25
that
they
office
office
a
of
religion
represent
the
county
The
the
office
county
whatever
itself
They
county
is
cant
that
secular
adopt
APP
16
16
The
terms
in
personal
interest
then
about
actually
Your
summary
you
in
the
all
in
judgment
are
the
Misha
of
of
the
domestic
there
counties
that
11
eight
12
applied
for
13
person
county
personal
16
under
18
is
19
cant
never
official
this
21
There
22
legal
23
any
24
recognized
are
and
free
And
we
were
none
of
by
THE
states
any
the
at
exercise
of
those
is
we
where
would
the
been
peyote
all
for
applied
seven
that
this
face
this
just
issue
which
case
There
the
law
law
What
do
research
the
gay
not
free
you
you
there
last
marriage
find
exercise
is
single
right
night
now
case
has
mean
by
free
in
been
court
COURT
or
the
exercise
hearing
where
could
of
partnership
on
free
its
night
ever
that
six years
years
last
the
in
its
religiously neutral
at
this
evidence
speculative
claim
states
the
domestic
last
looking
court
or
speculative
applicable
number
in
had
that
the
think
have
reading
actually
which
about
generally
have
is
seven
not
or
that
completely
of
exactly
Exhibit
by my
that
spoke
is
last
issue
20
25
the
completely
Easton
of
have
Smith case
talking
submitted
also
the
that
there
were
its
were
front
Its
14
15
So
you
in
partnerships
And
at
Honor
for
counties
of
10
Ms
the
look
what
declaration
all
you
is
We
the
all
17
Isaak
if
which
briefing
about
talking
the
of
exercise
APP
17
17
right
MR
there
you
drug
said
peyote
what
Ms
that
test
was
there
was
12
get
13
So
14
there
anyone
you
its
walks
know
any
And
two
nature
18
accommodations
any
evidence
somebody
the
forms
also
else
with
this
smoke
was
finding
law
have
no
to
has
to
married
get
religious
specific
terms
in
be
would
county
question
made
could
do
the
Lee
State
function
And
what
happened
23
talk
the
Perry
24
talking
about
about
What
this
be
state
22
that
not
this
Honor
that
claim
that
could
The
the
of
in
21
25
neutral
law
they
that
opinion
the
of
hearing
here
neutral
theres
then
that
would
people
a
last
to
and
right
door
And
have
had
of
that
speculative
have
20
the
in
state
Scalia
the
wrote
exercise
its
neutral
at
generally
who
17
19
the
Here
that
free
no
Justice
Scalia
Justice
to
right
feedback
the
Smith case
peyote
on
positive
up
the
in
for
working
said
court
case
that
my religious
the
Easton
in
person
came
they
its
And
not
So
remember the
11
16
am
JOHNSON
and
well
10
15
if
Sorry
Oregon
v
law
happened
for
is
marriage
that
quite
is
the
or
state
Schwarzenegger
That
filing
clear
really
case
that
county
clerk
this
dont
we
particular
stapling
case
in
theres
of
Your
state
and
but
the
we
we
can
are
here
in
Lee
State
was
the
lawsuit
was
APP
18
18
filed
said
of
Then
Measure
okay
the
thats
Well
state
then
Measure
the
constitution
And Multnomah
issued
3000 marriages
before
Measure
Thats
the
36
Supreme
not
is
violation
immunities
and
privileges
Court
36
came
And
what
the
the
state
THE
COURT
is
And
So
all
so
fast
of
have
We
came
marriages
valid
all
Court
Supreme
so
those
of
are
they
the
not
said
County
is
the
arbiter
did
you
file
no
said was
Oregon
of
marriage in
Oregon
11
12
Multnomah
13
when
14
arguments
15
16
might
17
been
18
in
19
been
in
County
have
fact
the
named
why
the
clerk
should
cases
those
are
remind
county
clerk
did
MR JOHNSON
So
23
24
Oregon
25
assessor
and
why
the
has
one
thrown
now
and
there
are
some
no
of
one
the
standing
especially
the
of
out
am
the
first
You
sorry
that
cases
is
holdings
and
case
the
of
do
you
Your
should
not
that
you
this
Honor
imagined
filed
office
office
our
of
the
lawsuit
Multnomah
official
against
the
State
County
and
the
capacity
in
of
county
order
have
that
question
we
the
But
clerk
read
be
against
party
that
have
marriage where
on
as
me
21
ask
of
So
might
cases
to
decided
of
equivalent
the
which
forget
why
of
some
is
So
20
22
And
clause
10
came
36
to
have
APP
19
19
have
to
purposes
in
have
abundance
an
the
of
order
of
Lee
office
in
front
of
the
court
clerks
other
who
MR
And we
knew
TO
we
11
under
that
that
that
office
15
its
tomorrow some
16
name
in
are
19
germane
and
20
we
21
disrespect
22
of
23
marriage
are
personal
be
not
other
counties
to
and
the
them
tell
to
susceptible
Honor
realize
that
Your
the
but
Honor
motion
and
order
same
Your
Exactly
of
any
and
to
to
dismiss
what
COURT
views
when
have
of
purposes
that
order
we
what
named
If
their
put
have
or
the
his personal
care
his personal
views
are
The
is
argument
to
relief
its
dont
but
comes
we
office
the
we
it
that
person
and
that
his personal
issues
the
would
we
the
assessor
holds
he
for
what
is
name
his
care
Mr Waldruff
lawsuit
county
person
not
here
in
the
is
other
the
Waldruft
Randy
him because
dont
we
THE
24
who
caption
requesting
this
be
named
requesting
to
would
subject
dont
please
position
But
we
be
time
the
at
importantly
14
18
issued
hope
why
Exactly
might
holds
17
then
to
going
knew
13
the
for
State
But
12
are
but
we
Lee
Well
JOHNSON
here
is
county
would
we
State
knew
we
25
light
that
COURT
in
THE
But
caution
that
in
county
of
that
religion
not
relief
views
for
no
samesex
somebodys
be
that
purposes
about
can
that
APP
20
20
MR
YourHonor
Perry
before
the
having
state
happening
is
Perry
last
As
come
12
and
13
happening
14
personal
very
in
as
or
in
come
party
that
state
or
this
in
final
we
context
have
the
never
recognized
defend
to
thats
and
statute
sentence
of
those
important
to
someone
And
they
are
are
they
the
as
whats
just
although
not
you
attorney
thats
and
constitutionality
here
vows
personal
effectively
as
the
16
hyperbole
17
And
18
this
19
need
20
NOMs
21
times
am
wanttto
the
at
case
I
are
it
doing
cant
general
based
those
on
brief
there
and
to
dont
in
was
COURT
all
just
very
reference
to
You
know
of
Your
faith
good
address
that
want
to
that
dwell
the
but
Honor
to
MR JOHNSON
THE
COURT
think
it
was
poorly
in
in
number
discuss
Okay
I
that
the
collusion
want
on
lawyers
quickly
dont
the
that
they
whats
referenced
you
confident
acting
wanted
know
outset
completely
THE
24
the
views
15
23
Hollingsworth
intervene
to
terms
in
defend
said
not
here
So
11
but
the
said
you
paragraph
constitutionality
may be
be
could
It
Hollingsworth
clear
private
10
25
JOHNSON
very
22
it
cant
harm
significant
very
of
APP
21
21
word choice
poorly
discretionary
where
conduct
conversation
does
it
make
when
on
court
MR JOHNSON
THE
10
this
issue
other
of
down
go
road
unprofessional
none
seen
to
So
dont
want
she
So
wants
want
to
to
hear
in
weigh
Potter
issue
the
on
Ms
from
on
the
of
clerk
MS
11
12
repeat
13
wont
POTTER
think
Thank
Mr
think
its
15
substantial
legal
interest
16
unable
17
if
18
develop
this
would
carry
court
such
find
20
she
21
carry
22
delegate
out
that
the
25
to
of
any
to
in
enter
a
in
his
her
or
some
points
good
or
her
dont
find
of
down
or
position
duties
do part
that
just
your
he
or
duties
to
any
job
the
is
clerk
It
in
be
that
is
might
the
line
clerk
which
he
she
does
not
want
to
and
does
not
want
to
else
in
any
personal
a
would
events
herself
support
a
expressed
duties
the
someone
having
the
then
order
point
which
that
official
an
those
that
not
is
of
proposition
want
at
sorry
And
24
some
here
important
his
were to
part
23
out
himself
am
made
wont
those
repeat
to
Honor
Your
you
Johnson
14
19
want
of
Okay
COURT
if
has
terms
in
it
whether
each
accusing
this
about
question
and
unprofessionalism
suggests
intervention
are
people
me
It
case
law
preference
substantial
legal
for
not
or
APP
22
22
this
interest
such
think
interests
with
elected
an
represented
attempting
people
next
11
or
12
capacity
13
that
will
he
and
not
she
or
THE
15
burden
16
comments
so
should
COURT
give
18
hypothetical
19
who
20
there
21
abortion
22
public
23
of
had
was
strong
a
So
we
case
that
moral
hospitals
and
of
that
to
case
in
kind
want
had
was
of
to
his
from the
her
or
in
for
his
official
interest
group
public
to
have
have
you
reply
with
hospital
statute
be
challenging
these
on
parallel
a
nurse
abortions
performing
to
the
dealing
And
employee
in
the
that
relief
hospital
sought
would
was
be
that
and
with
the
performed
in
that
violation
as
unconstitutional
24
the
this
of
argue
final
give
state
is
personally
just
the
has
him or her
this
done
he
county
for
Mr Eastman
dont
it
vote
county
Eastman
interest
objection
they
this
this
official
be
challenging
said
an
this
if
of
nongovernmental
you
Suppose
act
in
Okay
MR EASTMAN
17
an
member
will
is
through
is
hide
to
upon
appearing
it
as
of
troubling
Mr
county
official
an
called
in
to
official
an
as
this
seeking
there
if
in
some
because
transparency
of
as
be
interests
her
14
25
is
take
official
county
to
here
intervention
an
support
really raises
come
only
and
election
10
also
it
official
to
who
would
it
respect
can
person
as
that
every
obligated
to
public
perform
APP
23
23
abortions
these
appearance
organization
that
The
that
be
sufficient
standing
it
nurse
own
behalf
fact
that
affected
directly
to
for
to
is
was
make
an
of
an
part
standing
what
duties
and
the
that
Oregon
are
think
she
is
going
to
third party
member
Court
Supreme
but
is
the
hence
which
of
interest
personal
litigation
organization
heres
And
she
public
that
by
her
give
the
there
her
by
but
want
abortion
opposes
affected
is
10
her
on
doesnt
The
said
in
Lee
The
11
12
licenses
13
county
ministerial aspects
in
15
that
the
16
licenses
county
The
17
it
clerk
has
the
statute
long
to
list
litany
19
reach
20
performance
21
this
22
requested
23
that
are
involved
because
24
they
ran
for
office
25
as
result
every
of
injunction
And
county
those
have
duties
is
court
it
will
implicate
statewide
defendants
county
grants
the
relief
will
now
be
that
hers
the
by
have
they
dramatically
and
bound
be
to
the
in
person
that
will
clerk
of
job
ruling
that
interests
the
courts
duties
of
marriage
clearly going
this
this
of
sought
the
So
if
that
of
clerk
the
issuance
state
named
injunction
been
by
the
in
here
plaintiffs
through
on
goes
18
to
issuing marriage
function
And then
14
have
Oregon
of
his
or
took
when
different
injunction
that
APP
24
24
have
plaintiffs
The
Thats
standard
one
particularized
injury
Hollingsworth
that
interest
the
abortion
12
they
were
Its
marriage
of
15
office
16
going
17
18
Its
the
clerks
things
dont
suppose
but
you
MR
19
20
have
21
an
22
those
23
obligated
24
injunction
sought
injunction
licenses
to
THE
of
generalized
about
talking
in
protectable
transaction
that
is
be
handing
office
to
mean
file
Then
would
the
is
out
get
an
transaction
in
Okay
certificate
mean
any
in
All
to
if
of
rights
in
an
marriage and
two
are
file
different
something
county
relief
their
county
duty
have
the
to
conferral
paperwork
require
this
perform that
COURT
that
of
part
they
it
relevant
Its
is
transaction
participate
not
can
that
kind
was
minimal
very
its
the
or
the
transaction
not
significant
property
would
EASTMAN
is
marriage that
to
to
the
Here
14
nurse
required
13
25
the
its
is
and
Roberts
hypothetical
your
and
the
the
not
otherwise
been
action
this
of
In
Its
But
to
have
interest
Justice
COURT
relating
10
11
Chief
would
it
intervention
for
injury
the
subject
than
protectable
THE
sought
case
every
clerk
They
county
In
plaintiffs
have
clerk
will
that
response
right
the
that
to
such
the
to
sought
issue
be
an
again
APP
25
25
turn
Roberts
to
issue
because
with
failure
organization
government
to
talk
about
and
what
what
there
to
defend
without
will
who
11
replace
12
answer
is
And
it
what
answer
15
no
16
them
17
are
18
all
No
19
one
amicus
20
have
21
period
22
however
23
defend
to
to
this
that
case
be
me
with
Branch
an
the
disagree
the
Ms Rosenblum
to
am going
doesnt
that
agency
and
law
private
to
telling
Ms Rosenblum
powers
say
that
relationship
would
of
is
do
of
interpretation
in
you
Roberts
one
no
what
review
not
they
at
provision
time
and
to
as
for
and
for
or
their
proponents
for
defenders
of
extent
with
to
make
they
elected
removal
at
As
apparently
an
the
how
general
intervals
appointment
whatever
petitioners
themselves
attorney
provides
the
Yet
make
to
regular
explains
unelected
of
decide
arguments
elected
an
is
said
Californias
Unlike
unspecified
initiative
they
choose
to
it
And
Branch
mean
court
continues
he
separation
organization
your
agency
in
Executive
14
25
any
to
the
where
you
to
13
24
law
stand
next
right
the
of
Branchs
the
is
really
asking
members
are
And
are
you
case
Hollingsworth
think
Executive
the
10
the
in
should
isnt
not
he
get
really
involved
saying
in
who
that
the
Judicial
and
how
the
Executive
APP
26
26
Branch
is
to
going
make
MR EASTMAN
with
all
due
discussion
that
had
by
focusing
after
initiative
any
particularized
And
all
so
No
way
to
provided
the
attorney
11
that
whole
12
question
13
injuries
where
we
And
Your
14
15
where
16
government
17
nothing
18
was
19
cases
itself
lack
was
had
was
doing
defense
of
had
they
proponent
have
was
to
with
deal
specific
24
issues
25
legislature
come
But
Well
Thats
There
says
citizen
there
context
Thats
in
if
had
or
are
where
opinion
tons
of
lawsuits
whole
for
example
slew
that
of
created
legislatively
the
the
because
created
separationof
cases
case
defending
are
the
the
any
when
fully
legislatively
its
injury
particularized
intervene
adequately
recently
COURT
in
being
particularized
earlier
allowed
not
no
alleged
asked
environmental
THE
that
longer
in
objecting
THE
the
no
passed
that
doesnt
think
MR EASTMAN
but
the
begins
general
Honor
been
Roberts
that
ChiefJustice Roberts
since
in
now
COURT
21
23
have
people
relatively
20
22
discussion
fact
were
because
They
Justice
Honor
injury
generalized
10
Your
difference
initiative
the
by
the
on
they
the
The
Chief
is
respect
decisions
these
where
consumer
powers
the
protection
APP
27
27
the
But
And
Judicial
bestows
such
And
did
not
been
permitted
13
is
14
for
15
to
16
that
17
to
that
the
others
flow
be
And
clerks
create
think
the
create
The
grounds
the
law
in
does
law
create
here
injury
not
could
that
if
standing
it
Courts
Supreme
the
Constitution
injury for
them
able
the
in
enough
to
law
this
in
be
here
saying
clerk
county
state
be
to
to
are
you
and
going
know
able
to
intervene
earlier
on
the
objection
some
mentioned
you
are
we
the
has
injuries that
standing
raise
Honor
authorized
What
particularized
change
Your
have
statutes
and
19
question
20
theres
25
duties
the
the
if
know
that
the
gives
least
Given
particularized
have
from a
that
to
them
create
dont
authority
particularized
who
Branch
is
question
statutes
on
under
18
24
the
of
what
So
12
23
the
lawsuits
citizen
creates
Judicial
the
county
the
clear
very
at
on
law
constitutional
meet
11
22
has
interest
an
21
does
MR EASTMAN
Oregon
10
the
mean
Branch
when
dont
law
environmental
do
that
of
discretion
great
think
the
as
it
was
not
unprofessional
is
discretion
part
parties
seeking
case
One
the
are
of
on
as
conduct
all
relief
a
the
the
claim
but
by
only
timeliness
discretionary
both
same
meant
the
the
of
taking
makes
that
issue
question
judgment
the
this
same
by
theres
definition
where
the
side
fact
of
definition
any
collusion
But
is
the
APP
28
28
when
2
take
you
things
collusion
chose
have
gotten
on
legal
on
because
EASTMAN
THE
COURT
You
14
word
15
bad
dont
choice
want
You
to
that
the
of
point
You
parties
to
agree
that
word
Your
Honor
happened
import
middle
words
of
17
factual
18
the
claims
19
adversarial
law
It
or
have
you
the
in
should
chosen
suggested
When
problem
with
chosen
middle
different
different
point
It
was
makes
are
not
that
both
parties
concession
on
in
warranted
not
being
case
COURT
THE
21
MR EASTMAN
22
THE
COURT
Okay
All
That
right
was
the
And
argument
that
Thomas
made
dissent
MR EASTMAN
whether
they
unprofessionalism
somebody
claims
point
have
about
legal
on
20
his
have
middle
hear
MR EASTMAN
16
was
the
should
The
COURT
13
25
thats
just
of
Mr Eastman
suggest
they
Theres
definition
honor
would
that
mean
MR
the
have
it
not
together
topic
not
lets
MR EASTMAN
12
24
are
you
THE
word
in
and
case
it
10
23
the
of
Thats
Dont
collusion
side
that
COURT
11
same
THE
admitting
the
had
Well
the
but
again
California
the
Supreme
issue
Court
there
had
APP
29
29
have
said
of
whether
are
entirely different
they
state
the
they
making
Right
did
They
The
particularized
make
not
the
represent
the
injury line
on
point
injury which
particularized
interests
of
what
is
we
is
cases
they
Hollingsworth
did
what
is
make
Chief
an
the
Justice
10
that
they
11
Chief
12
generalized
injury
13
reasons
we
14
was
Justice
why
one
15
but
the
backers
think
the
of
the
claim
19
its
20
hypothetical
21
AfricanAmerican
22
change
23
districtwide
And
my law
Lets
somebody
sues
didnt
in
suppose
majority
citywide
to
city
attorney
doesnt
alleging
that
the
atwide
district
like
dilution
maybe
a
effort
to
an
to
election
that
than
Alabama
in
clerk
case
majority decides
an
well
as
me make
city
from
county
again
let
is
different
vote
is
but
temporary
system
here
Hollingsworth
here
argument
claimed
different
any
make
not
was
didnt
The
important
the
background
electoral
The
24
the
three
got
the
They
claiming
voter
in
that
they
injury
are
the
is
They
professor
their
have
we
initiative
think
18
are
you
others
How
MR EASTMAN
17
injury that
all
think
but
make
in
about
talking
about
talking
particularized
COURT
THE
was
is
didnt
They
their brief
in
said
I
Roberts
case
particularized
have
Justice
Roberts
Roberts
cases
agency
agency
claim
Chief
had
the
on
what
25
they
had
And
16
because
standing
system
move
make
that
And
so
change
APP
30
30
the
law
in
benefiting
concedes
then
negates
was
a
sets
up
the
summary
effect
AfricanAmerican
generalized
dilution
to
11
Hollingsworth
12
dilution
13
generalized
14
vote
and
15
the
front
16
back
end
17
have
those
18
not
have
end
taken
that
thats
particularized
20
way
21
Every
22
particularized
one
23
particularized
in
24
routinely
25
that
completely
election
that
of
and
every
thing
could
case
have
are
Courts
entire history of
is
them
either
it
negating
effectively
that
in
by
the
of
importance
away
or
decision
vote
sense
to
right
blocking
its
you
effect
on
on
the
it
that
you
here
have
negates
in
claims
19
one
That
complaint
Supreme
of
the
of
from casting
And
back
attorney
their interests
that
one
every
it
the
out
because
conduct
by
the
negation
though
in
throws
But
But
city
motion
favor
in
even
nothing
that
to
of
purpose
extent
that
cases
vote
the
citywide
voted
claim
Theres
10
And
judgment
be
who
explicit
answer
that
of
would
vote
the
in
point
That
race
particular
that
the
for
designed
to
those
in
voters
from those
Sims on those
the
way
standing
COURT
the
recognized
involved
recognized
THE
think
injury as
Reynolds
of
why
Okay
dilution
vote
all
cases
generalized
injury not
we
talk
and
standing
cases
in
normally
yet
the
those
Supreme
about
Court
has
cases
Ms Potter
do
you
want
to
the
APP
31
31
that
to
respond
MS POTTER
Just
votes
their votes
Its
counted
Theres
diluted
and
what
happened
here
The
10
other
11
Mr
12
is
13
articulating
14
voters
15
analysis of
16
she
determined
17
and
Oregon
basis
the
were
thing
is
discussing
relevant
to
the
the
by
an
the
19
injury
20
and
21
on
22
There
23
lawsuit
24
civil
appears
the
the
law
It
had
36
Measure
law
is
is
is
that
is
not
the
that
he
general
injury that
lawsuit
one
an
in
the
he
is
done
to
the
independent
legal
the
on
were
that
is
What
believes
articulating
to
comparable
injury that
engaging
correct
not
just
the
their votes
of
any
basis
position
of
that
federal
law
Thats
18
that
say
injury
the
was
to
this
and
for
the
course
today
of
law
you
of
sense
became
36
subject
attorney
Thank
voted
hypothetical
Eastman
is
who
People
right now
no
immediate
Measure
enforced
being
Honor
Your
the
in
on
werent diluted
25
Yes
to
attorney
legal
isnt
the
not
this
be
general
question
an
which
rights
THE
are
COURT
the
the
the
is
question
being
fact
reached
that
injury to
is
the
violated
Hard one
that
same
subject
voters
of
on
whether
by
to
lawsuit
this
subjectof
the
legal
of
the
Oregon
explain
plaintiffs
conclusion
this
subject
the
The
lawsuit
this
of
plaintiffs
law
to
voters
but
all
APP
32
32
right
Mr Johnson
3
if
dont
you
would
that
on
dont
You
need
the
to
have
the
like
to
the
court
individual
individual
10
the
11
court
12
Diamond
also
in
14
There
was
15
number
16
to
17
abortion
18
that
19
consistent
20
what
the
21
that
they
22
law
23
there
24
So
25
forth
in
defend
somebody
with
court
had
because
are
fewer
statute
came
to
And
who
this
had
kind
and
its
in
in
and
Perry
their
the
or
Karcher
its
holding
but
the
cited
the
case
opinion
particular
and
that
attempted
economic
well
interest
am a
to
also
be
interest
that
they
say
indicated
consistent
will
with
And
intervene
pediatrician
interest
declined
would
people
person
consistent
there
then
value
that
to
state
objector
interests
views
and
the
person
that
abortion
outlawing
value
economic
of
was
conscientious
36
was
said
an
the
challenge
the
abortions
both
have
might
there
case
an
they
had
and
have
point
minimize
in
people
might
mentioned
Measure
said
Hollingsworth
voters
to
trying
considering
person
similar to
statute
of
other
only
case
law
that
terms
in
reasoning
that
OBGYNs
of
they
its
criminal
you
Charles
And
13
that
that
cited
court
not
was
the
Honor
in
holding
views
views
that
is
Courts
Supreme
say that
make
Your
add
to
anything
MR JOHNSON
comment
any
with
and
the
if
more patients
were
putting
APP
33
33
And the
court
come
in
and
represent
chooses
not
to
want
And
the
Perry
the
talked
courts
court
about
the
in
Justice
and
case
that
COURT
prime
11
ensure
12
upon
13
preference
that
way
Roberts
That
Id
Okay
15
but
16
claiming
17
be
18
as
it
litigation
does
ask
the
state
would
you
case
in
Hollingsworth
is
inherent
to
you
to
respond
that
opposed
is
that
of
going
a
to
So
lose
are
in
this
when
24
plaintiffs
we
25
plaintiffs
and
were
we
what
Thomass
the
dissent
intervenors
something
improves
on
thoughts
think
that
are
should
decision
making
into
couple
brought
of
this
months
our
that
will
but
interms
came
a
whose
it
here
we
officials
Justice
in
system and
roundabout
lesson
insists
court
state
is
advocacy
your
too
is
the
to
case
reference
JOHNSON
be
the
that
the
hinders
to
history
23
by
is
improves
MR
not
conducted
certainly
What
19
yet
to
is
justiciability
advocacy
granted
and
of
purpose
vigorous
And
14
2021
law
when
statement
10
22
this
state
cant
you
ruling
THE
enforce
the
sideof
the
said
and
enforced
it
dismissed that
case
answer
will
this
case
that
give
little
case
the
behind
knowing
the
Rummell
Geiger
that
that
am
bit
APP
34
34
there
was
answer
Mary
answer
an
attached
Williams
that
would
that
when
point
be
have
Michael
the
so
we
been
on
That
was
And
the
had
we
And
then
in
11
asked
12
scheduling
13
date
14
Hollingsworth
15
okay
we
are
16
might
be
confronted
17
assert
18
want
19
the
20
date
for
because
court
came
21
is
22
this
23
terms
24
the
25
to
did
we
the
have
with
there
and
went
But
the
we
be
recognize
that
the
asserted
an
amicus
was
bit
adifferent
that
the
same
way
that
some
organizations
be defended
but
that
doesnt
is
not
out
change
court
an
amicus
We
looked
and
the
state
court
that
experience
law
the
might
in
to
amicus
Honor
there
not
would
propose
that
at
said
may
people
defending
the
here
that
lets
Your
fact
state
some
yes
the
record
into
the
And
of
where
knew
we
where
date
that
of
where
So
cases
issues
here
that
way
case
the
time
these
at
at
us
consolidation
inserted
at
to
so
court
we
be
thought
the
inserted
situation
in
interests
And
situation
DOJ
we
looked
We
other
the
General
this
consideration
research
interests to
that
and
courts
the
to
that
order
Perry
going
certain
those
for
for
that
from
in
was
hearing
after
scheduling
order
That
the
lawsuit
the
of
clear
that
Jordan
Michael
was
different
side
other
obvious
10
January
bit
potentially
this
and
Attorney
that
it
were
into
already
Deputy
not
Jordan
we
came
case
Geiger
from then
the memo
to
And
the
in
in
law
want
terms
in
it
of
APP
35
35
whether
have
they
COURT
THE
not
or
right to
Ms Potter
Okay
here
intervene
on
anything
that
issue
MS POTTER
state
has
advised
state
has
certainly
in
all
defending
other
the
their
state
assist
the
11
arguments
12
opportunity
and
We
14
from NOM
15
as
16
with
17
presenting
because
18
those
not
19
objection
to
20
receive
latefiled
21
of
the
on
but
party
level
were
the
distinction
24
has
suggested
25
And
the
them
court
and
we
analyzed
basis
to
the
court
deciding
it
wants
think
it
really
advocacy
that
it
wants
is
it
is
problem
not
are
that
in
the
and
to
an
play
has
of
that
briefing
this
those
the
is
state
that
dont
have
like
court
NOM
to
this
an
can
an
to
make
to
gets
adversary
to
not
all
consider
adversarial
adversary
not
arguments
determined
we
to
attempted
court
which
an
are
those
would
it
being
that
part
made
available
receive
law
gets
has
out
make
and
the
brief
to
that
them
uphold
that
between
that
conviction
amicus
the
been
have
laying
So
the
have
court
We
simplyto
that
wishes
questions
vigor
arguments
23
to
amicus
an
as
of
And
22
legal
hear the
to
vigorously
by
the
only
by defendants
decision
the
if
Not
The
country
bans
responding
also
wants
arguments
briefings
its
in
court
out
the
Honor
Your
court
laid
cases
10
13
the
if
around
cases
those
Yes
the
the
and
NOM
role
plaintiffs
APP
36
36
here
could
that
nor
its
are
order
the
NOM
to
So
who
defend
adversarial
brief
if
dont
have
in
are
the
law
role
the
court
an
are
in
the
COURT
to
relief
The
case
Thats
handled
to
the
an amicus
by
brief
latefiled
and
something
already
be
can
accept
do
to
parties
We
that
to
objection
Okay
10
THE
11
MR EASTMAN
12
ordered
wants
court
the
on
adversary
an
advocacy
this
seeking
be
The
effect
any
to
position
state
have
isnt
that
nothing
actually
NOM
legally
because
would
do
plaintiffs
are
members
Your
can
Honor
address
that
point
14
probably
15
if
16
respond
17
to
those
want
you
to
and
make
now
else
would
19
said
repeatedly
20
law
and
21
necessary
22
Justice
23
are
24
least
25
Canada
that
that
under
only
You
enforcing
two
and
of
the
are
know
was
Windsor
for
half
the
plaintiffs
seeking
to
of
if
convince
this
thats
law
both
are
to
those
have
the
not
With
who
want
you
briefs
your
enough
am
So
my questions
jurisdiction
But
of
on
Mr Eastman
defendants
state
opinion
of
time to
the
adversarialness
Kennedys
heart
outside
be
the
think
statement
general
MR EASTMAN
18
And
really the
are
anything
consider
Yes
COURT
THE
13
you
to
want
me
me
have
parties
enforcing
create
the
according
accurate
respect
the
to
weremarried
to
They
at
out
marriage recognized
in
the
APP
37
37
after
day
we
adopted
are
the
not
lawsuit
enforce
this
in
regulations
the
filed
attorney
said
general
that
and
they
have
state
not
enforcing
that
it
there
is
not
only
enforcement
of
the
law
actually
now
of
part
law
the
So
least
at
not
defense
either
adversarialness
opinion
the
of
And
do
11
Wright
12
case
13
by
14
rights
sic
of
if
affected
16
adversely
17
wedding
18
regime
19
statewide
20
requested
those
21
affected
Any
22
name
23
organization
24
to
that
might
are
have
they
injunction
We
are
of
one
believe
to
that
intervening
THE
COURT
be
of
who
it
under
issues
that
them could
theres
as
might
that
is
be
may
clerk
dilution
a
as
saved
who
the
different
a
result
or
legal
of
plaintiffs
be
adversely
on
are
claim
the
intervene
clear
to
affected
have
theirown
authority
their behalf
themselves
Windsor
represents
county
have
for
according
result
vote
to
if
Okay
on a
operate
on
same
adversely
to
intervene
that
adversary
going
rights
Kennedys
qualification
easy
the
real problem
of
out
rights
voters
or
who
providers
Justice
The
genuine
an
creates
desire
have
we
not
that
of
part
easy way
otherwise
that
So
them
an
but
under
even
parties
intervention
15
law
and Miller
the
where
that
on
think
Theres
10
25
to
going
was
given
for us
the
as
an
hurdles
APP
38
38
else
Anything
MR EASTMAN
THE
want
me
to
outside
timeliness
issue
think
notes
of
and
have
MR
10
11
that
12
complete
one
COURT
14
MR
JOHNSON
16
proceedings
17
On
the
stage
not
19
before
the
motion
20
that
And
then
21
applicable
22
of
the
You
And
23
24
Your
25
longer
for
Honor
and
have
am
involved
the
you
about
the
new
something
list
here
in
my
add
is
timing
thing
wanted
is
to
obviously
the
in
court
timeliness
in
the
the
make
summary
cases
this
one
delay
and
proceedings
judgment
sides
really
the
was
factors
stage
the
we
about
again
it
the
of
The
prongs
both
on
its
sure
been
to
three
of
know
proceedings
talk
together
only
for
to
going
the
theres
district
On
reason
point
am
the
the
18
could
timeliness
in
theres
timeliness
parties
Yes
THE
for
The
of
13
15
other
briefing
if
put
regard
factors
discretion
the
Honor
can
have
JOHNSON
the
of
You
with
findings
from
moment
COURT
THE
for
Honor
your
Your
briefs
your
Your
Anything
MR JOHNSON
No
COURT
consider
outside
prejudice
made
38
heard
were
the
of
the
hours
and
all
not
frankly
of
question
of
the
stage
case
that
involved
we
in
all
all
cases
many depositions
that
and
the
went
that
and
lawyers
on
kind
for
of
much
thing
APP
39
39
Thats
not
But
what
kinds
stage
at
all
of
if
you
look
the
the
but
Honor
them
that
10
time
as
cases
cases
in
if
the
you
So
in
that
13
in
14
The
15
decided
in
February
16
brought
in
December
17
months
Love
they
was
The
De
in
Beshear
and
And
are
Your
number
around
or
been
here
seeking
the
look
to
have
13
there
time
and
July
was
decided
the
of
the
that
Lee
Honor
postWindsor
are
cases
stage
case
The
we
determine
to
think
well
okay
the
of
same
case
this
late
to
filed
less
see
Your
urge
now
that
in
the
of
are
Bostic
decided
in
Rainey
in
February
in
brought
Orr case
we
proceedings
in
case
and
July
Illinois
was
Thats
three
February
Leon
Which
18
THE
COURT
19
MR
JOHNSON
20
brought
in
December
21
De
Perry case
22
decided
in
February
23
Idaho
District
24
ban
That
case
25
yesterday
The
Leon
and
decided
in
this
been
those
at
brought
sic
have
direction
terms
believe
would
to
look
to
compare
cases
here
12
were
we
that
look
been
now
right
Virginia
could
those
at
have
11
court
proceedings
all
decided
the
if
of
of
case
this
Court
was
The
and
Texas
four
brought
was
down
in
that
that
just
in
and
judgment
sorry
Illinois
in
was
months
October
yesterday
states
November
am
three
brought
And
summary
Orr case
February
months
struck
for
was
Lee
decided
in
motion
case
gay
The
and
the
marriage
decided
in
that
case
was
APP
40
40
filed
THE
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
this
is
point
director
January
the
exhibits
the
Okay
filed
motion
our
Mr Eastman
Timing
for
25th
attached
state
think
responds
13
And what
15
abandoned
16
appeal
legal
if
you
own
to
19
members
20
themselves
21
diligent
brief
am
our
not
in
of
one
the
declarations
have
clear
motions
own
is
for
until
picture
summary
judgment
true
then
since
happened
we
learned
or rather
learned
that
there
was
not
going
NOM
did
not
have
who
going
frankly
quite
in
had
this
That
it
became
NAACP
Alabama
to
COURT
recess
take
not
happen
pull
that
Okay
maybe five
am prepared
to
until
did
trying
THE
22
25
to
intervene
its
think
will
This
on
what
was
that
what
being
to
be
an
taken
18
24
we
on
characterize
to
early
36
the
of
back
were
And
little
brief
our
executive
here
plaintiffs
Measure
one
ACLUs
the
by
in
not
thing
arguments
we
17
23
one
its
thats
think
those
of
to
12
14
the
think
states defense
The
statement
counsel
10
the
day we
same
to
want
11
the
18th
on February
to
lets
hurdle
overnight
right
minutes
a
that
to
but
it
on
had
intervening
we
were
together
All
issue
clear
standing
and
ruling
take
on
go
am going
over
to
my notes
intervention
fiveminute
take
recess
So
APP
41
41
Recess
notice
filed
of
the
by
asked
being
notice
have
on
both
of
contributed
So
11
finding
12
would
13
finding
You
basis
16
discovery
17
my mouth
18
explaining
legal
of
raised
20
were
21
think
22
marriage
23
24
an
public
said
I
time
a
recusal
that
what
understanding
was
law
the
in
was
the
in
misunderstanding
the
the
by
case
and
the
facts
of
may
back
nonparty
judge
have
group
Despite
never
be
455a
for
to
parties
to
kind
me
quite
issue of
so
made
recusal
that
case
the
of
And
that
being
cannot
supports
and
some
rally
gay
have
was
it
On
recall
recusal
want
22nd
attended
gay
even
dont
clarify
January
never
dont
because
you
notice
on
or maybe
22nd
this
the
this
an
on
January
of
have
made
for
let
in
would
theres
that
clarify
know
statement
advocacy
the
filing
regarding
misunderstanding
it
waiver
some
So
to
been
on
up
19
to
some
hasnt
and
Section
warrant
15
facts
want
under
14
address
22nd
January
10
25
the
hard
theres
think
to
intervenor
little
want
information
proposed
had
did
for
request
COURT
THE
of
to
but
any
problem
having
did
open
raised
the
issue
I
to
party
begin
the
theres
think
have
issues
by
of
gay
never
donated
that
made
money
marriage
involved
in
the
law
the
to
APP
42
42
gay marriage has
of
subject
interest
not
read the
entirety
the
dissent
and
opinion
would
And
that
was
generally
that
11
are
12
basis
Until
that
What
do
try
made
So
14
marriage and
15
subject
to
16
Mass
recent
17
to
read political
18
to
the
19
marriage
to
hearing
where
22
raised
23
the
24
moved
25
was
it
years
CLE
because
speakers
to
Eugene
approved
for
none
tried to
in
comments
can
on
probably
comes
it
has
become
attended
believe
didnt
by
very
law
Ms
the
the
Oregon
comments
where
times
for
the
attended
State
priest
gay
January
school
Middleton
attend
am
archbishop
legalize
at
the
not
questioned
or
Ms Middleton
and
on matters
most
common
to
is
samesex
bishop
raised
the
at
my clerks
credit
be
of
the
been
efforts
its
know
up
from the
that
when
issue
actually
example
which
are
others
reasonably
an
22nd
January
times when
of
has
condemning
on
case
this
of
discussions
it
statements
outcome
benefit
community
are
read
Hollingsworth
discuss
There
had
had
financial
or
political
me
personal
case
decision
small
this
to
the
on
dependent
or
legal
the
of
personal
examples
it
comments
was
no
avoid
to
give
Another
21
read
my best
congregation
20
Windsor
impartiality
13
in
the
inadvertent
which
upon
of
before
come
but
assigned
think
Oregon
could
was
of
is
little
had
know
receive
10
me
to
held
And
was
one
was
just
the
Bar
22nd
of
CLE
It
was
It
APP
43
43
sponsored
2
School
Oregon
Windsor
face
the
made
me
the
ballot
end
very
10
to
volunteer
11
because
12
campaign
did
we
And
13
talking
15
questions
not
The
17
notice
and
18
share
19
plaintiffs
20
child
Its
21
anyone
under
22
Mr
Eastman
23
you
know
want
if
that
about
16
from
and
guess
was
repeatedly
this
in
the
age
ACLU
the
the
on
that
to
practitioners
to
guess
35
kind
aware
were
been
guess
that
we
I
am
do
asking
and
at
of
we
are
believe
am
53
share
people
left
events
and
that
white
or
close
We
have
we
to
are
is
the
at
least
they
it
worked
male
I
our
am
had
they
addressed
gay
more personal
political
of
of
share
think
And
them
share
the media
I
of
part
what
favor
in
clerks
My
the
are
said
both
fact
and
by
that
the
male
raising a
characteristics
would
say
are
exactly
think
we
are
whole
life
in
To
that
characteristics
we
the
well
age
and
of
history
campaigned
organization
thats
in
be
up
willing
with
where
is
marriage spoke
people
of
this
an
those
case
true
of
University
believe
lecture
become
to
with
characteristics
or
difficulty
sign
issue
other
like
redefining
stay
about
14
25
to
and
and
dont
somebody
initiative
the
end
very
is
nervous
Law
clients
advise
the
of
was
it
and
holding
At
OGALLA
Law
generally
to
trying
School
Oregon
of
And
24
the
by
the
So
same
both
the
law
APP
44
44
We
have
public
defender
issues
in
the
characteristics
the
years
time
cases
9
10
of
me
that
have
have
the
12
if
13
certainly
14
of
any
to
15
So
raised by
18
leave
19
deny
you
front
of
the
throughout
on
cases
all
me
civil
similar characteristics
very
given
this
in
the
case
my
case
its
changed
ongoing
the
to
thought
irrelevant
would
duty
fact
as
Certainly
I
certainly
judge
to
be
aware
it
was
conflict
did
want
address
to
all
regard
hanging
to
that
intervention
with
and
big
because
here
my just
is
Federal
Rule
certain
circumstances
of
Civil
to
22
nonparty
in
23
right or
by permission
of
24
proposed
intervenor
demonstrate
25
requirement
under
litigation
to
rule
the
bench
permit
The
that
it
going
to
opinion
allows
the
intervention
Intervention
court
to
going
am
Procedure24
court
ongoing
am not
surprise
21
in
on
share
in
appear
families
with
setting
family law
on
take
sometimes
to
as
characteristics
me
intervention
20
like
know
you
plaintiffs
men
their
both
notice
With
17
the
havent
understand
possible
its
gay
people
and
of
posture
that
cases
sent
have
sometimes
with
common
So
11
16
sometimes
We
what
me
with
prison
to
we
fact
criminal
on
know
unpopular
an
But
advocates
been
both
can
burden
meets
be
is
the
of
of
on
the
APP
45
45
The
2
whether
guided
by
make
am going
application
has
property
parties
focus
is
on
the
or
the
Rule
first
two
transaction
Intervention
should
be
the
Of
relating
the
the
intervenor
proposed
interest
four
Whether
prongs
is
right must
by
24a
the
that
this
court
court
the
under
with
13
the
14
threeprong
15
an
independent
grounds
16
or
defense
the
17
law
or
subject
court
to
the
of
this
and
that
the
for
main
is
allow
for
must
motion
federal
action
is
discretionary
consideration
satisfy
that
timely
jurisdiction
share
common
has
it
its
claim
question
of
fact
the
makes
the
The
20
to
24b
intervenor
proposed
and
Rule
Nonetheless
showing
So
18
threshold
Geiger
plaintiffs
Greisar
Greisar
MR PERRIGUEY
23
THE
24
Brought
challenging
COURT
the
question
this
is
timeliness
and
the
findings
following
22
25
under
protectable
determining
court
intervention
and whether
12
21
the
in
action
11
19
that
considerations
equitable
seeking
timely
significant
held
has
appropriate
showing
fourpart
to
is
and
practical
The
Circuit
intervention
10
Ninth
Geiger
Nelson
Duehmig
Greisar
Greesar
Greisar
Greisar
action
definition
of
Thank
on
you
October
Sorry
15th
marriage found
in
2013
the
Oregon
of
APP
46
46
Constitution
and
The
the
Rummell plaintiffs
MR
MR
JOHNSON
THE
COURT
statutes
Oregon
which
include
Rummell
Chickadonz
West
ISAAK
action
identical
December
on
10
2014
11
would
12
summary
13
for
At
be
the
to
court
the
same
15
be
16
hearing
The
that
matter
on
18
judgment
19
plaintiffs
20
summary
and
case
The
and
cases
on
agreed
motion
22nd
January
that
this
matter
on
ruling
was
hearing
on
filed
March
this
in
General
23
took
24
couples
from marriage is
25
October
of
Rosenblum
position
2013
only
the
hearing
an
set
going
final
dispositive
thematter
on
Thats
to
for
the
filed
summary
Geiger
their motions
for
2014
4th
ever
amicus
that
was
their motions
2014
case
That
agree
Rummell plaintiffs
22
clear
their
were
challenges
dispositive
posture
18th
February
Prior to
for
dispositive
plaintiffs
judgment
21
the
parties
court
was
the
The
the
the
to
the
17
filed
Tanner
Their
consolidated
this
on
and
2014
23rd
under
2013
time
judgment
And
Chickadonz
Geiger plaintiffs
submitted
14
Chickadonz
19th
The
April
Chickadonz
filed
being
brief to
quote
The
the
Attorney
Ninth
exclusion
unconstitutional
This
of
Circuit
samesex
occurred
in
APP
47
47
On
answer
announced
Oregon
appellate
the
to
Rummell
That
based
day
same
National
Organization
Attorney
General
constitutional
As
10
12
the
13
defend
duty
the
filed
their response
16
March
18th
17
the
18
should
19
Oregons
20
one
21
constitutional
22
decisions
be
2014
to
the
defending
recent
of
that
could
By
shamefully
25th
for
the
Oregon
to
judgment
summary
their response
because
defendants
from three
On April
the
restricting
1st
21st
pass
put
for
and
governor
this
and
and
Woodward
motions
in
believed
recent
took
judgment
summary
under
court
on
defendants
one
marriage to
scrutiny
forth
2014
citizen
for
office
of
the
motion
April
counsel
2014
Oregon
of
analysis
her
abandoning
their oath
uphold
longer
quote
quote
plaintiffs
no
that
announced
Rosenblum
marriage laws
the
intervenor
Kitzhaber
In
granted
woman
is
calling
Constitution
15
25
be
their
Rosenblum
interpretation
proposed
January
was
Defendants
briefs
their
Marriage
closed
general
position
the
for
as
intervenor
14
24
General
not
would
filed
just
Attorney
state
on
Rosenblum
early
attorney
23
the
having
decisions
proposed
2014
complaint
that
publicly
marriage laws
11
20th
February
the
that
man
and
federal
appellate
had
received
amicus
groups
2014
so
just
two
days
prior
to
our
APP
48
48
motion
dispositive
intervenor
intervention
hearing
motion
to
motion
denied
10
up
the
to
as
12
reason
for
13
intervene
14
dispositive
16
of
the
17
April
for
reason
20
its
sooner
of
judgment
21st
April
2014
filed
the
2014
23rd
intervenor
proposed
That
hearing
set
was
argument
notify
than
motion
has
the
for
filed
motion
to
today
was
take
its
of
windrow
credible
no
provided
court
40hour
the
intent
prior to
to
the
hearing
intervenor
proposed
had
clear
two
position
generals
21
until
as
22
their
own
23
Oregon
intervenor
proposed
failing
they
to
had
organization
stated
admission
months
understanding
to
prior
the
determine
significant
in
has
submitted no
whether
and
any
Oregon
their membership
only
is
days
only
member
interests
protectable
their brief
credible
ago
around
By
100
members
Proposed
brief
to
failing
The
19
25
regarding
23rd hearing
18
24
counsel
evening
intervenor
proposed
attorney
proposed
intervention
of
The
15
the
23rd summary
April
the
April
and
untimely
The
the
was
the
delay
for
plaintiffs
on
22nd
April
issue
11
pm
intervene
On
with
delaying
1104
At
conferred
and
counsel
hearing
raising the
intervenor
issue
of
chose
not
intervention
to
file
an
or
even
amicus
simple
of
APP
49
49
notice
the
to
So
court
am
as
theirintent
to
the
finding
motion
to
intervene
is
untimely
With
intervenor
unidentified
county
intervenor
this
has
and
clerk
100
voter
significant
the
right
proposed
members
industry
wedding
unidentified
have
of
approximately
the
in
an
submits
that
an
unidentified
an
the
proposed
in
interests
protectable
case
10
The
court
the
degree
11
determine
12
because
13
their
14
genuine
15
have
16
regarding
17
declarations
18
proposed
19
by
20
anything
21
intervenor
the
the
identities
issues
But
and
the
existing parties
of
the
members
intervenor
proposed
And
than
under
intervenor
parties
other
and
court
proposed
for passage
of
Measure
24
the
of
25
significant
case
protectable
36
is
there
of
disclose
to
think
the
is
The
general
that
of
file
the
from
inquiry
on
standing
the
proposed
voter
voters
interest
would
may
court
immune
ascertain
to
interest
discussions
members
interest
unable
intervenor
to
statements
2004
in
are
with
members
to
not
proposed
camera
conclusory
the
chosen
requesting
the
are
protectable
dialogue
or
made
the
by
23
outcome
in
or
has
than
of
hold
seal
the
that
orders
protective
has
understand
concern
of
rather
One
22
its
among
worker
intervention
to
regard
who
voted
interest
and
allow
not
for
in
APP
50
50
intervention
One
as
clerk
in
in
appearing
particular
of
information as
in
this
to
perform
what
to
10
religious
11
grievance
12
It
job
matter
no
not
at
issue
One
13
14
15
religious
16
what
service
wedding
service
the
The
17
Mr Eastman
19
but
20
marriedmany
couples
21
Hawaii
they
fly
22
town
take
their
23
there
24
to
25
ceremonies
to
get
is
case
are
have
not
off
here
any
she
or
have
interest
does
may be
moral
not
is
required
or
hypothetical
generalized
little
provided
confer
standing
case
who
intervenors
also
and
in
about
is
tried to
about
over
to
who
the
their
formal
assume
married
of
representative
has
members
general
samesex marriage
here
18
this
he
might
sincere
proposed
to
works
moral
as
or
unclear
is
It
works
member provides
case
you
Such
provider
objection
who
not
is
protectable
that
they
this
in
the
of
than
how
clerk
has
clerks
the
to
objection
individual
government
that
duty
as
capacity
other
litigation
The
intervenor
proposed
an
is
Oregon
local
or
county
is
official
an
The
in
county
members
proposed
vows
marriage
they
Oregon
in
to
eat
years
in
Oregon
hometown
and
come
or
vice
here
their
go
take
who
versa
who
to
your
cake
gets
samesex couples
yet
this
clarify
know
have
fly
off
to
parents
I
to
brief
mean
Washington
their vows
and
APP
51
51
about
Nothing
that
laws
consumers
is
about
Nothing
that
ruling
ruling
forbid businesses
based
Discretionary
The
marriage laws
quote
10
raising but
is
not
closed
11
of
the
is
that
the
12
of
government
13
Branch
14
it
day
order
in
believes
17
and
18
its
19
lobbying
20
21
approximately
22
fact
focus
answerable
25
directors
such
it
as
100
to
of
am
to
to
Oregon
itself
should
defend
the
the
then
the
at
argument
if
law
end
Executive
the
has
someone
be
Branch
Executive
for Marriage
the
but
well
as
because
members
do
to
stating
am
what
a
and
think
political
of
membership
not
organization
terms
in
your
I
is
ACLU
is
finding
intervention
in
Oregon
that
that
is
is
Oregonians
of
electorate
National
lobbying
just
obviously
significantly
the
The
quote
political
number
the
discretionary
government
Organization
that
on
More
24
against
harm
defense
Executive
mean
organization
representative
23
Oregon
us
mean
the
willing
based
I
the
provide
that
National
am not
to
be
DC
Washington
to
seeks
unconstitutional
is
should
16
want
not
is
The
The
change
the
change
discriminating
intervenor
proposed
intervention
15
will
to
going
intervention
it
from
is
exists
already
and
make
orientation
sexual
on
make
the
of
Executive
Oregon
Organization
Mr
Branch
is
Eastman
for Marriage
and
are
the
not
APP
52
52
would
It
Hollingsworth
Executive
organization
the
of
simply because
This
is
an
citizens
Oregon
going
political
to
be
10
in
lobbying
know
the
12
but
prepared
13
with
14
Its
hard
15
members
third party
17
to
its
So
16
substitute
its
And
to
really get
posture
an
they
lives
of
of
not
are
posture
are
clear
have
probably
debate
the
some
case
Oregon
Executive
this
case
Branch
degree
phantoms
idea
these
been
of
remain
harmed
in
presented
will
It
in
an
Oregon
case
The
19
Mr Eastman
20
appreciate
21
know
motion
your
intervene
to
do
briefing
denied
is
appreciate
You
are
smart
arguments
your
guy
and
you
THE
thank
you
22
All
23
MR EASTMAN
25
the
intervention
adversarial
of
to
18
24
its
many Oregonians
lack
by
the
official
impacts
and
with
disagrees
elected
the
by
interest
private
that
the
group
disappointed
given
case
abeyance
that
for me
Oregons
Oregon
11
am not
substitute
organization
Itstimeliness
held
of
to
with
the
the
following
court
government
interpretation
for
opinion
Branch
legal
remarkable
be
right
COURT
MR
EASTMAN
Your
Honor
if
may
Yes
because
we
need
to
request
APP
53
53
This
stay
and
wed
an
is
like
immediately
stay pending
COURT
THE
Okay
MR JOHNSON
COURT
of
your
will
be
denied
Honor
may
know
make
one
Yes
MR JOHNSON
terms
in
of
your
factual
findings
10
believe
that
11
brought
their motion
12
amended
their memo
13
motion
for
I
15
the
date
16
motion
that
the
18
correcting
19
quickly
March
that
factual
4th
are
and
February
date
to
we
our
also
They
filed
our
18th
4th
summary
Thank
down
originally
January
in
March
correct
scribbling
lot
date
judgment
for
you
of
is
notes
Okay
MR PERRIGUEY
20
on
replied
You
was
judgment
18th
February
county
COURT
THE
17
Geiger plaintiffs
summary
judgment
the
think
the
for
on
summary
14
21
Your
you
order
appeal
stay
as
comment
THE
The
order
appealable
Your
Honor
there
was
one
other
issue
Yes
22
THE
COURT
23
MR
PERRIGUEY
from Michael
24
order
25
plaintiffs
You
Jordan
mentioned
The
state
the
day
the
actually
after
the
issued
the
Geiger
Rummell plaintiffs
in
your
APP
54
54
THE
COURT
MR
PERRIGUEY
modification
THE
that
Aah
COURT
Okay
So
All
thats
else
that
Anything
All
right
Thank
you
THE
CLERK
Court
is
The
proceedings
10
14th
day
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
slight
you
mistaken
on
will
allow
correction
11
Thank
right
just
of
May
were
have
very
in
much
recess
concluded
2014
this
my
dates
APP
55
55
hereby
correct
aboveentitled
dated
transcript
this
of
matter
15th
day
that
certify
of
the
to
oral
the
May
the
foregoing
proceedings
best
of
my
is
had
skill
2014
sKristi L
Kristi
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Anderson
Anderson
Certified
Realtime
Reporter
in
and
true
and
the
ability
APP
56
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
Attorney
General of Oregon
Solicitor
General
M JOYCE
ANNA
MARY
WILLIAMS

1162 Court Street
NE
Salem Oregon 973014096

Telephone 503 3784402
Counsel for DefendantsAppellants
Jennifer
Woodward Randy
Waldruff
IN

USCA
No
1435427
WILLIAM GRIESAR PAUL
RUMMELL
LISA
WEST
BENJAMIN
CHICKADONZ CHRISTINE
TANNER BASIC RIGHTS

EDUCATION FUND
Plaintiffs
Appellees
V
JOHN KITZHABER
capacity
ELLEN
as
ROSENBLUM
capacity
MOTION TO DISMISS
in his official
Governor of Oregon
in her official
General of
as Attorney
WOODWARD
Oregon JENNIFER
in
her official
capacity as State Registrar

Center for Health Statistics Oregon
Health
Authority
WALDRUFF
RANDY
in his official
capacity as

Defendants
Appellees
V
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
MARRIAGE INC
Intervenor
FOR
Proposed
on behalf of their Oregon
Members
Movant
Page
Appellant
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJblt15316931
Department
1
162 Court
Salem
OR
of
Justice
Street
NE
973014096
971 6731880
APP
State
Jennifer
Governor
defendants
Woodward
appeal from the
of
constitutionality
motion
this court
day
that
judgment
appeal the
it
day
as
district
The
intervene
NOM
in the
filed
Because
the
D Ct Dkt
No 114 NOM
9th Cir Dkt
May 19 2014
is
moot
its
notice
of
the
That litigation challenged
interest in the
on
it
underlying litigation on
No
issued an opinion and order declaring
Ct Dkt Nos 118

well
NOMs
that
NOM
had
court
district
then sought and
15
That same
Oregons ban on
D Ct Dkt
judgment
renders their appeal
appeal
is
moot where
relief can be
506
119
The
No 120
district
court entered
its
do not intend
Defendants
to
courts judgment
entry of the
Beaumont
Page 2
stay
court
from enforcing
effective
because
marriage to be unconstitutional and enjoining the state defendants
samesex
An
to intervene
No 117
to intervene
denied a
the district
Marriage Inc
was both untimely and
to intervene
its
for
appeal
Oregons ban on samesex marriage
a significant protectable
denied
to dismiss the
motion
its
D Ct Dkt
May 16 2014
motion
of
denial
Rosenblum and
John Kitzhaber Ellen
move
hereby
57
in the
litigation
in
which
NOM
of the denial of their motion to intervene
no present controversy
there exists
as to
granted Outdoor Media Group Inc v
F3d 895
sought to
900 9th Cir 2007 internal
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJblt5316931
of
Department
1162
Salem
Court
OR
971
justice
Street
NE
973014096
6731880
citation
moot
which
City of
omitted
APP
intervenor has the right of appeal
proposed
intervene but where the
and
litigation
intervenors
district
issues final
is
appeal
court
no effective
also United
States
moot
was
litigation
Here
its
the
mootness doctrine
doctrine
applies
whether
NOMs
will
not
of a motion to intervene
it
is
v Natural
That
intervenor
9th Cir 1981
is
See
dismissing as
because
complete and no party
is
NOM
no
effective
the
underlying
appeal
will
relief
should
it
moot
capable
of repetition yet evading
apply here
That doctrine
Doe v Madison Sch
This
is
Dist
from
applies
No 321
to the
only in
177
F3d 789
798 9th
not the kind of extraordinary case in which the
The capable of repetition
appeal
review exception
its
motion
part
of the inquiry focuses
to intervene
is
likely
The Oregon ban on samesex marriage has been
Therefore
Page
en bane
dismissed
cannot
extraordinary cases
that proposed
can be granted to the proposed
1143
to
the underlying
9th Cir 2011 so holding
this court can grant
as
Moreover
Cir 1999
701
the underlying litigation
appeal
motion
its
West Coast Seafood Processors Ass
the denial
voluntarily
Therefore because
dismiss
relief
of
denial
decides
subsequently
v Ford 650 F2d 1141
moot an appeal from
from the
judgment and no party appeals
Res Def Council Inc 643 F3d

because
58
highly unlikely that any further litigation
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJblt5316931
Department
1
Justice
NE
OR 973014096
971 6731880
162 Court
Salem
Street
to occur
struck
over the
on
again
down
validity of
It
APP
that
ban
will
occur again and no further opportunity for
NOM will
Finally to the extent that
litigation
to argue that
merits because
Even
if
about
the
this court
samesex
too fails
argument
in
able
being
state defendants
assumes
that the
Article III
interest
the
has throughout
will
it
to appeal
courts
that they
NOM
they have failed to
it
the
has
order on the
will not appeal
have a concern
make any showing
The member who voted
to appeal
the
in the merits of the
district
members of
in
Oregon and
v Perry 133
Ct 2652 2668
upheld the standing
statute
it
has asserted that
have determined
three
standing
NOM
to appeal
Oregon
in
as
viable to permit
a protected
ban than any other voter
when
state
here A
services to a
to challenge
clerk
to intervene
that
for the
marriage ban has no greater interest in the constitutional challenge
Hollingsworth
Page 4
that
and
continue
appeal shouldremain
marriages
they would have
samesex
its
members who have
three unidentified
time
NOM
be presented
likely
the
59
standing
2013
to appeal
We
have never before
of a private party to defend the constitutionality
officials
wedding
samesex
have chosen
planner
couple
not to
who may
or
We
may
decline
of a state
to do so for the
of that marriage
be asked to provide a license to a
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJblt5316931
Department
1162
Salem
Court
OR
971
of
Justice
Street
NE
973014096
6731880
first
not be asked to provide
seeking to celebrate their marriage lacks
who may
lacks
to
The same
samesex
is
standing
true for a county
couple but
who
has
APP
only a personal and not an official
wedding
planner
objections
may
and
lead
not play a role in
objection
the individual
to other
60
samesex marriage
to
who happens
concerning
litigation
samesex marriage
to be a county
For both the
clerk their
whether they have a
but they have no connection
right to
to plaintiffs
claims of a right to marry under the federal constitution
In short there
NOMs
is
litigation
has concluded
its
for this court
left
simply nothing
motion
and so too must
to do with respect to
to intervene
NOMs
The underlying
appeal
F ROSENBLUM
ELLEN
753239
Attorney General
M
M JOYCE
Anna
ANNA
Solicitor
Joyce
General
MARY H
WILLIAMS
maryhwilliamsmsncom
Attorneys for DefendantsAppelleees

Jennifer Woodward Randy Waldruff
Page
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJblt5316931
Department
olJusticc
NE
OR 973014096
9716731880
162 Court
Salem
Street
APP
61
CERTIFICATE
hereby certify that on
OF SERVICE
May 20 2014
directed
the
Motion
to Dismiss to
be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of
for the Ninth
Appeals
in the case
Participants
by
CMECF
the appellate
further
CMIECF
Circuit
postage prepaid
have
who
appellate
some of
the
participants
will be served
the
dispatched
to a third party
it
case are not registered
by FirstClass Mail
commercial
nonCMECF
carrier for
participants
Harris
5000
in
mailed the foregoing document
or have
system
CMECF users
are registered
delivery within 3 calendar days to the following
Roger
CMECF
system
certify that
users
by using the
SW
LLP
Meadows Road
Suite
400
Lake Oswego Oregon 97035
M
M JOYCE
Anna
ANNA
Solicitor
Joyce
General
MARY H
WILLIAMS
annajoycedqjstatcorus
mary
hwilliamsmsncom
Attorneys for DefendantsAppelleees
John Kitzhaber
Jennifer
Page
MOTION TO DISMISS
AMJblt15316931
of
Department
1162
Salem
Court
OR
971
Justice
Street
NE
973014096
6731880
Ellen
Rosenblum
Woodward Randy
Waldruff
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 2 2014 11 57 58
Subject
RE
It
did
From
Sent
To
Now we
Thanks
Potter
Sheila
Monday
FW
brief
has no attachments
wait
doj state or us
potter
2014 11 39 AM
This one ought
From
Sent
to
come
brief
has no attachments
no OCRing
through be er
just the
PDF
Hamilton Mary C
Monday
Potter
Subject
Let
AM
mailto sheila
June 02
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
To
Sheila
June 02
2014 11 18 AM
Sheila
me know
you want
if
me
brief
to
has no attachments
rename
this
before you send out
Mary
Mary Hamilton
Legal Secretary
to Sheila Potter
Jesse Davis and Carson Whitehead

Department
1515
SW
OR
Portland
Phone
Fax
of Justice
Fifth
971
971
Ave
Suite
410
97201
673 5030
673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 2 2014 3 36 47
Subject
RE
Thanks
It
s a good
Sheila
H
PM
Appendices
brief
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
Monday
June 02
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
2014 11 39 AM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
And
FW
Appendices
the appendices
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
6 2 2014 3 37 35
Subject
Re
Thanks
Your team
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Sheila
PM
Appendices
s is
too
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jun 2
LEaston
Thanks
Lea
2014
of
at
3 36 PM
dorsayindianlaw
It
s a good
From
Potter
Sheila
Monday
June
Lea
Ann
Subject
FW
And
Ann
Easton
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
wrote
brief
the
mailto
02
2014
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
11 39 AM
Easton
Appendices
appendices
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Lea
com mailto
Ann
Sent
To
Justice
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Johnson
Sent
6 2 2014 3 45 17
Subject
RE
Thanks
Great job on the
Perkins Coie
Jr
Sheila
Potter
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
checking
Lord knows where the
all
R
PM
Thomas
original
message
is
hung up
cyberspace
in
briefs
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Thomas R
Johnson
Monday
June 02
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
The
Jr
Perkins
Coie
TRJohnson
mailto
perkinscoie
com
2014 9 38 AM
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
Coie
Perkins
RE checking
state s brief
Thomas R Johnson
1120
Couch
Perkins Coie LLP
Street
Tenth Floor
OR
Portland
97209 4128
503 727 2176
PHONE
503 914 8918
CELL
FAX 503 346 2176

E MAIL
trjohnson
From
Sent
To
com
Lea Ann Easton
Monday
Potter
Subject
perkinscoie
haven
June 02
Sheila
mailto
LEaston
dorsayindianlaw
com
2014 9 35 AM
Johnson
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Coie
RE checking
received
it
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Tom
Subject
We
Sheila
Monday
June 02
Johnson
mailto sheila
doj state or us
potter
2014 9 34 AM
Perkins
Coie
Misha Isaak
Perkins
Coie
Lea Ann Easton
checking

received
it
make
and
got
it
but
it
Mary
didnt
and
now
if
m
you
Thanks
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
IRS CIRCULAR
230 DISCLOSURE

intended
that
or written
by Perkins
may be imposed on
party
any transaction
NOTICE
advise
or
Coie LLP to be used
Treasury
contain
herein
or
and IRS
Revenue Code
or
ii
taxpayer
for
regulations
including
we
inform you that
any attachments
the purpose
of
avoiding
is
not
penalties
any attachments
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
Department
may
with
matter addressed
This communication
the sender
contents
otherwise
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Joyce Anna
To
Eastman John
Sent
6 3 2014 9 40 06
Subject
Automatic
Anna
at
971
Joyce
Michael
599
is
currently away
Casper doj state
8408
reply
if
you need
AM
13A1173
from the
NOM
office
or us mailto
assistance
v Geiger
et al
Please
Michael
contact
Deputy
Casper doj state
Solicitor Michael
or us t
blank
or
Casper
H
VON TER STEGGE
9 43 45 AM
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
6 3 2014
Subject
FW
Attachments
ATT00001 htm National Organization
Sheila
13A1173
NOM
multco us
katevts
Jenny
MADKOUR
m morf
jenny
multco us
Geiger et al
for
Marriage
Reply in support of Stay
Application
pdf
The two of you are on his list

but not with the e mail addresses I have for you
and since
he left me off completely
I m not going to assume that he definitely got everything
else
right
Anyway
From
Mary
Sent
Tuesday
To
Cc
here
is
Williams
June
NOM
s brief
mailto
03
mary h williams msn
2014
com
9 41 AM
Potter Sheila H
Casper Michael
Subject
Sent
Fwd
13A1173
NOM
Geiger
et
al
from my iPad
Begin
forwarded
From
message
Eastman
To
Danny
Cc
John
jeastman
Bickell
dbickell
michael casper
chapman
edu
supremecourt
doj state
mailto
gov
or us mailto
jeastman
mailto
chapman
dbickell
michael casper
doj state
michael casper doj state or us mailto michael casper doj state

anna joyce doj state or us mailto anna joyce doj state or us
anna
joyce
doj state
or us mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
edu
supremecourt
gov
or us
or us
or us
Katherine
von
terstegg
co
Katherine
von
terstegg
co
multnomah or us
Katherine
von
terstegg
co
Katherine
von
terstegg
co
multnomah or us
Lea
Ann
Easton
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
com mailto
leaston
dorsayindianlaw
leaston dorsayindianlaw com mailto leaston dorsayindianlaw com

Steve
SSHAPIRO aclu org mailto SSHAPIRO aclu org
lake law works com mailto
lake
law
works
com mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org mailto
agoad
aclu
org mailto
lake
kdiaz
agoad
law
works
aclu
aclu
com
or org
kdiaz
agoad
aclu
aclu
perkinscoie
com mailto
KJHolm
perkinscoie
com
KJHolm
misaak
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com mailto
com mailto
KJHolm
misaak
perkinscoie
perkinscoie
com
com
misaak
perkinscoie
com mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com mailto
TRJohnson
perkinscoie
com
com mailto
kdiaz
agoad
aclu
works
aclu
com
or org
org
org
KJHolm
jmiddleton jjlslaw
or org mailto
org mailto
com
Shapiro
lake law
jmiddleton jjlslaw
com

mary h williams msn
com mailto
mary h williams msn
com
jenny
m madkour
multco us mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
jenny
m madkour
multco us mailto
jenny
m madkour
multco us
roger
hbclawyers
com mailto
Subject
Dear Mr
RE
13A1173
Bickell
National
Organization
addressed
copies
to
Justice
are also being
service
mail
Please
NOM
roger
hbclawyers
Geiger
et
sent
to
confirm
is
attached
the
Counsel
for all
Court by overnight
receipt
of
this email
Sincerely
John
Dr
Eastman
John
Eastman
Henry Salvatori Professor of

Dale E
Fowler School of Law
One University
Orange
714
Dr
CA 92866
628
2587
ofc
Harris
al
for Marriage s reply brief in support

Kennedy
Roger
com
Law
Community Service
at Chapman University
of
its
application
parties are copied
mail and
to
the
for a stay
here
parties by U S
and
hard
postal
877
855
3330
x2 alt
714
844
4817
fax
Founding
The
Director
Claremont
Institute
Center for Constitutional
Jurisprudence
No A13 1173
In
Supreme Court
the
of the
United States
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE

on behalf
of its
INC
members
Oregon
Applicant
v
DEANNA
L GEIGER
JANINE
PAUL RUMMELL BENJAMIN
M NELSON
WEST
LISA CHICKADONZ
CHRISTINE
TANNER AND
FUND
Respondents
Plaintiffs
and
JOHN KITZHABER
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
JENNIFER
WOODWARD
as Governor of
capacity
WALDRUFF
in his
as Multnomah County Assessor

Respondents
Reply in Support
Oregon
Health Statistics Oregon Health Authority and RANDY

official
Oregon
of Application
Defendants
Judgment Pending Appeal
to Stay

Roger
K Harris
John
HARRIS BERNE CHRISTENSEN

5000
SW
Road
Meadows
Lake Oswego
OR
LLP
Suite
400
97035
503 968 1475

503 968 2003 Fax
roger hbclawyers com
C Eastman
Counsel
of
Record
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
c o Chapman
One
University Fowler School
University
Orange
JURISPRUDENCE
Dr
CA 92866
877 855 3330
714 844 4817 Fax

Counsel for Applicant National
Organization
for
Marriage Inc
of
Law
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
INTRODUCTION
I
None
of the Procedural or Jurisdictional Issues Asserted
Bar NOMs
Application
Rule 23.3 Does Not Pose

Stay From Both the
Procedural
Bar Because
NOM
Sought a
Court and the Ninth Circuit the Latter
District
Explicitly Requesting
by Respondents
Stay from this Court
for a
a Stay
of the District
Courts Proceedings
and
3
Alternatively of Its Judgment.
NOMs Ninth Circuit Appeal of the Intervention Denial is Not

Moot Because NOM Has Filed a Protective Notice of Appeal of
the
Underlying Merits Judgment
District
II
Courts
Respondents
Getting
Merits
this
Court
to
There
is
Issued
There
is
Court
will
fair
on
is
standing to appeal from the
Unlikely to Succeed
All
the
Utah Case
13
probability that this Court will soon
reasonable
issues presented
by this case
below
settled the likelihood
16
of irreparable
harm
inquiry
III
Respondents
17
Arguments that
to Intervene Also Fall
The Ninth
NOM
is
Unlikely to Succeed
on
its
Motion
Short
19
Circuit is likely to hold that
NOMs motion
to intervene
was timely
NOMs members
21
not only have protectable interests warranting
intervention of right but those interests meet the requirements

Article III
13
by no means a certainty that this
the merits judgment
This Court has already
on
But Overlook That This Court
of the Parallel
albeit
11
Either in
of Certiorarior Ultimately
the constitutional
prospect,
reverse
NOM
Challenge
a Stay
more than
certiorari
III
Grant a Writ
of the Substantive
grant
do have Article
Arguments that
Has Already
Judgment
NOMs members
for
28
standing
CONCLUSION
31
ii
Cases
Acree
370
Republic of
F3d
Iraq
D C Cir 2004
U S 848 2009
41
Beaty 556
Alameda Newspapers Inc

95
F3d 1406
Baker
409
Board
526
US 810
447
133
F2d
v
16
of the University of Illinois
Hicks
422
Keney
388
Internat
Assn
of
Machinists
10
USA
19
Baptist Meml Healthcare
375 380
US 269
v
Co v
affd 427
Investors Mortgage
Ins
F Appx
431
6th
Cir 2011
27
Co
1991
US 1305
v
Corp
W D Tenn 2009
Turner
1984
Kitchen
S Ct 893
Jan
2014
16
v Miranda
US 332
v
1972
US 1101
2005
S Ct 2652
v New
14
Perry
11 13
2013
15
York
US 440
F3d
16
Lazaroff
Kootenai Tribe
313
No 50
1980
Hollingsworth
133
14
Yellen
Hoevenaar
545
Doe
9th Cir 1974
800
FRD
Herbert
134
1999
S Ct 1138
Heckler
468
Oakland
1972
FirsTier Mortgage
498
v
8
City of
Silvergate Dist Lodge
US 352
Clarke
264
of Iraq
12
of Trustees
Clapper
Republic
9th Cir 1996
US 1142
Bryant
by
Nelson
Brennan
503
on other grounds
abrogated
1967
14
v Veneman
1094
9th
Cir 2002
iii
Landau
388
Landis
299
1967
of
14
N Am Co
US 248
League
131
Fording
US 456
1936
15
United Latin
F3d
1297
of
Wilson
789
Cir 1997
9th
Legal Aid Society
Am Citizens
Alameda County
Brennan
F2d 1319 9th Cir1979

Marisol A v Giuliani
126 F3d 372 2d Cir 1997
12
608
S Ct 1
Mausolf
125
26
v King
Maryland
133
11
2012
passim
Babbitt
F3d
8th Cir 1997
661
10
NAACP v Alabama
357
US 449
Pellegrino
203
F2d
Purcell
85
1958
Nesbit
9th Cir 1953
463
BankAtlantic
F3d 1508
F3d
480
Tocher
219
US 370
v
Biological
Concerned
1040
Ours Garage
US 385
United States
29
F3d 1413
United States
288
F3d
650
F2d
F3d
Berg
passim
Neighbors in Action
Ana
Wrecker
on other grounds
abrogated
Serv Inc
536
U S 424
by
City of
Columbus
2002
v
27
McDonald
1977
California Mobile
Home
Park
Mgmt
27
Co
9th Cir 1994
City of Los Angeles
9th Cir 2002
21
27
10
11
v Ford
1141
United States
135
391
United States
Diversity
Cir 2000
9th
United Airlines Inc

432
1987
City of Santa
F3d
Fin Corp
9th Cir 2001
810
Stringfellow
11th Cir1996
Ctr for
Southwest
268
passim
9th
Cir 1981
v Sprague
1301
9th
Cir 1998
26
iv
United States
745
F2d
United States
133
State
of
Or
9th Cir 1984
Inc
US 1301
2013
Intl
passim
Bhd
F2d
of
Teamsters
1987
Washington State Bldg

684
26
v Windsor
S Ct 2675
Airlines
480
550
F3d
No 3 01 cv 00421
150
F3d
F3d
Williams
23
555
7th Cir 1998
Soc
1173
939
v NRDC
case filed
10
12
U S Forest Serv
9th
Cir 2011
26
7th Cir1994
Jan 25 2001
Katz
US 7
Yniguez
Inc
10
N D Cal
671
F3d 190
Winter
Martin
Wilderness
630
9th Cir 2011
701
Wiggins
Spellman
26
West Coast Seafood Processors Ass n

643
AFL CIO v
Const Trades Council
9th Cir 1982
627
Inc
2008
Arizona
F2d
727
9th Cir 1991
27
Other Authorities
GRESSMAN
ET
AL
SUPREME
Wright
Miller 7A
Fed Prac and Proc
Wright
Miller 7C
Fed Prac
Wright and Miller 15A
1972
COURT PRACTICE 9th
Fed Prac
1904
Proc Civ
ed 2007
1916
Proc Juris
3d
ed
3902.1
14
26
26
2d
ed
10
7 19
26
Rules
Fed
R Civ P 24a 2
SCt Rule
23.3
ii
136
To
of the
Kennedy
the Ninth
Associate
for the
Justice of the
United States Court
respectfully
submit
immediate stay pending appeal
of
an
this reply in
support
laws
Oregon
and
invalidating
enjoining
District
enforcement
man woman
they limit marriage to
to the extent
of its
order denying intervention
judgment and injunction entered by the United States
of
Appeals
of
for
Circuit
Applicants
District
Supreme Court
application
and
for
an
of the
Court
for the
marriage
of Oregons
unions
INTRODUCTION
Once again demonstrating
below Defendants and
parties to the case
the ongoing
stay filed by the National Organization
1958
to protect
acknowledges
Marriage Inc
the
members
number
of procedural
hurdles that the
NOMs
marriage law
application
Part
Respondents
for
But
far
make
First Rule 23.3
is
stay those hurdles highlight the need
a bar
U S 449
NOM
because
oppositions to
NOM
did seek
parties
any defense
of
of
for it
jurisdictional
NOMs
459
readily
from preventing this Courts consideration
in their respective
not
which sought
non adversarial
offering
below addresses the various procedural and
for
in upholding Oregons
constitutionally codified definition of marriage
have interposed in an attempt to prevent anyone from
Oregons
NOM
NAACP v Alabama 357
the significant interests of its
long standing and
relationship of the
both oppose the application
Plaintiffs
for
to intervene below under the authority of
non adversarial
application
arguments
for a
stay from the courts
stay
below
and
specifically
alternatively
of
Rule 23.3
application
from the Ninth Circuit
Even
of the judgment.
this case presents
proceedings
in the district
that is not adequate
if
for
court
or
normal application
extraordinary circumstances that warrant direct
Court
of a stay to this
under governing
of the
in any event
And
Ninth Ciruit precedent
members has
articulated
the Article III
standing necessary
and
concrete
to
Second NOMs
finally
NOM
appeal
on behalf
of its
particularized injuries sufficient
pursue an appeal
of the
moot
not
is
to provide it
judgment once
its right
to intervene is affirmed
Part
the
II rebuts
Respondents
Utah marriage case
Herbert
claims that despite this Courts grant of
Kitchen 134
S Ct 893
curiously not even mentioned by the Government
likelihood
of certiorari being
or of that judgment being
Part
successful
III
on
addresses
Jan 6 2014
Respondents
granted on the merits
stay in
a case
there is
of the underlying
no
judgment here
reversed
Respondents
its intervention
claims that
NOM
is
similarly unlikely to be
appeal either before the Ninth Circuit or
if
necessary
postjudgment
this
Court Given
that this Court has frequently
in order to preserve
determination that
erroneous
NOMs
the right to appellate review the district
motion was untimely
While mere error correction
Courts attention
given
permitted intervention even
is
absent
quite likely to be found to be
normally not
the fact that the district
jurisdiction over a part of the case
is
NOMs
sufficient
to warrant this
court arguably does not even have
intervention
and
contentious nature of the issues at stake in this litigation there
courts
is
given the highly
at least
probability that this Court would grant certiorari
reasonable
issue as well
in the
assuming the Ninth Circuit doesnt reverse the
sum
none
of the
district courts denial
supposed impediments to this Courts issuance
that have been raised by Respondents
than the Utah case in which
None
of the
warrant treating this Oregon case
constitutional
for
a Stay from
at
NOM
Rule 23.3
NOMs
application
they claim
Court
is
not
a bar here
5 May
of the
motion
or
if
intervene
see also
id
at 9
stay
is
first
seek
below
for at least three
reasons
of the ongoing
of
the order denying
Emergency Motion
respectfully
appeal
did not
in the courts
one issued
a judgment has
resolution of Appellants
to
if
19 2014 Appellant
judgment pending
judgment
of the District
for
NOM
in the district court pending interlocutory appeal
Stay 9th Cir Dkt
Appellants
this
Its Judgment.
did seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit both
motion to intervene and
proceedings
assert that
as opposed to the proceedings
27 28
a Stay
Alternatively of
defaulted under Rule 23.3 because
Resp
proceedings
and
Proceedings
Plaintiff Respondents
First
its likely
23.3
stay of the judgment
Plaintiffs
differently
Does Not Pose A Procedural Bar Because NOM

Sought a Stay From Both the District Court and the Ninth
Rule
Courts
procedurally
stay
Procedural or Jurisdictional Issues Asserted by
Circuit the Latter Explicitly Requesting
The
here
questions at issue
Respondents Bar NOMs Application
of
Court has already issued a stay pending
this
consideration of the significant
its
the intervention
interim
In
on
for
seeks a stay of further
already issued stay of the
of the district
Alternatively
courts denial of
if
the judgment
has already issued adverse to Oregons marriage law before this Court can issue a
stay
NOM
requests
stay of that judgment pending resolution of its appeal from
alternatively
any
id The
dispositive
below should be stayed
proceedings
judgment stayed pending resolution
of
or
NOMs
appeal
The Ninth
Pacific
time on
court issued
for
its
Circuit denied
May 19 2014
and
opinion
summary judgment
permanently
and
Ins
Co 498
is
15 and a
Cir Dkt
declaring Oregons
final
both a stay of
Cf
sufficient
US 269 274
1991
after its
Requiring
NOM
to
respective
am
unopposed motions
their officers
judgment was issued
for
a stay
proceedings
FirsTier Mortgage
Co v
filed
and
later that
alternatively
Investors Mortgage
judgment id
another motion for
agents
with the Ninth
permitting notice of appeal to service
file
11 30
half hour later the district
by Defendants and
118 119 The
requested
about
for stay
marriage law unconstitutional and
notice of appeal from subsequently entered final
concurring
motion
120 Because NOMs motion
same day
stay of judgment,
emergency
order granting Plaintiffs
DCt Dkt
DCt Dkt
Circuit that
9th
enjoining its enforcement
employees.
same day
NOMs
as effective
Kennedy
at 278
stay less than
an hour
motion had just been denied would have been unnecessarily duplicative
Second a renewed motion

Circuits denial of the stay rested
Def Council Inc 555
U S 7 20
for stay
on
would also have been futile as the Ninth
this Courts decision
2008
in Winter
in which this Court reversed
Circuit injunction on the ground that the Plaintiffs in the case
had
Natural Res
a Ninth
not
demonstrated a likelihood
weighed
and
in their favor
that there
of success
which was
referenced
below in the context
case
briefed
neither the likelihood
hour A
in the intervening
1987 OConnor
filed in
U S 1305
when i
Court
lower court where
1984
1309
See
it
is
renewed motion
protective notice
would be
it
rejecting
for stay of its
of
intervention id at
6 2014
action
109
at
Bhd
Intl
Utah
of
to preserve its
Teamsters 480
holding that stay need not be
legally futile
requirement that stay
Heckler
first
be
v Turner
filed in
468
lower courts
formality
costly
judgment even
69
9th
Cir Dkt
describing
how
in the parallel case out of
Memo
is
if
one
is
at
this
Utah
submitted to it since a
an appeal
10 28
45 26 27
merits
Justice
in that case
grant of
on
Court has already granted a stay from

Herbert
SCt 893
87 at 1 3
Kitchen 134
DCt Dkt
in support of Motion to Intervene
arguments
As
likelihood of success
in support of Motion to Intervene
merits Reply
doubt about whether a lower court has
post judgment once
outlining arguments on the
Dkt
motions in order
appeal from that judgment has already been filed
Jan
of a stay in the parallel
unclear whether the district court has jurisdiction to entertain
jurisdiction to take
the judgment
futile
Airlines Inc
Rehnquist noted in Heckler where there
file
J in chambers
would be an empty and
Third
which was
underlying merits
calculus nor the balance of equities changed
party need not
U S 1301
first
the merits both on its motion to
below and on the
success
of
by
1304
on
of equities
that the equities are in its favor
of this Courts issuance
rights for review
this
contends
of success
intervene
fully
the merits or that the balance
NOM
Although
a likelihood
is
on
DCt
certiorari has been filed an application
is
468
not improper. Heckler
Thus
even
if
NOMs
U S at
for a
stay
directly to
Supreme Court
the
1308 09
and
prior requests for a stay in both the district court
the Ninth Circuit do not qualify for Rule 23.3 purposes because the Ninth Circuit
request which expressly referenced
both the order denying intervention and the
judgment was made a few hours and

was entered
enough to warrant
here to the extent that
Except in the
courts below
is
this Courts entertaining of
deemed necessary
most extraordinary circumstances
unless the relief requested
was
first
or from a judge or judges thereof.
constitutional
proceedings
below
definition of marriage the
defense and the refusal
of the
an
2675
2013 are
to
say the least
consideration of the application
application
for
not be
stay will
sought in the appropriate court or
Rule 23.3
emphasis
and
enforce
non adversarial
added The
to defend
nature
extraordinary
to file
an appeal
United States
her
of the
by a party actually prepared to
of Justice in
offer a
contrary to
Windsor 133
circumstances warranting
for stay filed directly
NOMs
application
Government defendants
the tactic employed by the Department
Ct
before judgment
After all Rule 23.3 provides that
refusal of the Attorney General below both to partially
States
an hour
the circumstances of this case outlined above are certainly
extraordinary
entertained
decided less than
with
this
Court
NOMs Ninth
Circuit Appeal of the Intervention
Moot Because NOM Has

the Underlying Merits
a Protective
Judgment
The Government Respondents

contending
Filed
assert
that this Court should not grant
motion claiming that NOMs
jurisdictional
NOMs
Ninth Circuit appeal
bar of their
stay because
is
moot
Denial
comprehensively explained in opposition
Not
own
of their
Resp
Govt
have joined the motion but as
surprisingly the Plaintiff Respondents
is
Notice of Appeal of
pending
at
10 Not
NOM
has
the Governments assertion of mootness
is
erroneous
It
is
appealable
1302
well established that denial of
order
League
9th Cir 1997
24
pursuant to Rule
U SC
1291
established
It
is
of
United Latin
LULAC The
a2
NOM
is
has
a motion
Am Citizens
is
v Wilson
an immediately
131
final decision
such an appeal and the Ninth Circuit has
briefing schedule
also well established that
entitled to participate
if
NOM
granted the right to intervene
is
US 370 375
normally has the
Yellen 447
when
appealing from
in the litigation including
adverse to its protectable
1297
within the meaning of 28
able to establish standing independent of the existing parties then
480
F3d
denial of a motion to intervene as of right
an appealable
filed
to intervene
1987
right to
interests
An
Stringfellow
intervenor
the United States forwent
1980
is
would be
any judgment
Concerned Neighbors in Action
whether by right or by permission
appeal an adverse
U S 352 366 67
it
and
final
intervenors
an appeal from
judgment by a
who
trial
court Bryant
sought to enter the suit
the District Courts adverse
decision
had
LULAC 131
standing to intervene
F3d at 1304
9th Cir 2002
judgment where
protected.
it
Indeed
general rule intervenors
Home
approval Pellegrino
appeal
and
to preserve
Nesbit 203
Park
also United Airlines Inc
of
i ntervention
is necessary
Pellegrino
California Mobile
purposes
press the appeal on their
admitted to a suit Kootenai Tribe
fully once
1110
as a
and
Mgmt
right
Republic
F3d
313
final
9th Cir 1994
1413 1416
U S 385 395
Iraq 370
after
which cannot otherwise be
n 16
allowing post judgment
of
1094 1109
9th Cir 1953 United States
465
Co 29 F3d
other decisions
Acree
v Veneman
some
432
are permitted to litigate
should be allowed even
F2d 463
McDonald
own behalf
F3d 41
50
1977
see
with
citing
intervention
for
DC Cir 2004
courts
often grant post judgment motions to intervene where no existing party
chooses
to appeal the judgment of the trial
Republic of Iraq
The
fact
Beaty 556
that the district
intervention appeal is
in the litigation
this
U S 848
still
See
who has been

he can
Indeed
Williams
the final
refused intervention
get the order
district
v Katz
23
may
denying his motion
the Ninth Circuit has explicitly
in Purcell
BankAtlantic
by
2009
pending does not deprive
and appeal from
eg
on other grounds
court entered final judgment
Court ultimately reverses the
intervene
court abrogated
judgment
NOM
if
190 192
of the right to participate
either the Ninth Circuit or
courts denial of
F3d
NOMs
while
NOMs
7th
motion
Cir 1994
to
A person
not appeal from the final judgment unless
to intervene reversed
followed
Fin Corp 85
added
the holding of the Eleventh Circuit
F3d 1508
emphasis
11th Cir1996
that the
intervention applicants appeal from the district courts denial of its motion to
was
intervene
LULAC
litigation.
live
not mooted
because
if
it
by the
T he
F3d at 1301 n 1
131
entry of judgment
district courts
were concluded
in the underlying
intervention controversy
on appeal that the
district
court
had
denying the intervention motion and that the applicant was indeed
intervene in the litigation then the applicant
district
file
proper procedure
protective notice
of
2d
ed
As
would be
intervenor
because
appeals the
the motion
in such circumstances is for the proposed
intervenor
become
effective
Fed Prac
if
the denial
Proc Juris
the Eighth Circuit has explained A notice of appeal filed by
pending appeal from the denial
of intervention
is
permitted
denial
motion from securing the ultimate object
of his intervention
the case
here
F3d
661 666
procedure and there
See Brennan
is
8th
as protective
intervenor
successfully
the appellate court does not resolve
courts
Cir 1997
final
No 50
decision
The Ninth
no reason to believe that
Silvergate Dist Lodge
800 803 9th Cir 1974
prospective
who
if as was
appeal only
to
to
contrary rule would prevent
Babbitt 125
judgment
entitled to
appeal the
intervention issue prior to the district
erred in
to
appeal as to the judgment
of intervention is reversed.
3902.1
still
Id
courts judgment.
The
would have standing
was
it
on
the
the merits.
Mausolf
Circuit has ratified that
would repudiate
Internat
of
Assn
of
it
in this case
Machinists 503
F2d
treating proposed intervenors separate appeal from the
or precautionary
after rejecting
only
and
not reaching the merits of that
the proposed intervenors appeal from the district
courts
NOM
order denying intervention
notice of appeal in the district
has followed that procedure
court
D Ct Dkt

ignores all
Processors Ass
United States
650
when an appeal from a

the proposed
judgment
much
denial of
intervenors
appeal
a motion
is
to challenge
of
nevertheless moot
643
F3d 701
9th Cir 2011 and
claim that even
to intervene remains pending on appeal
Resp
at
lower court issues
10 The
intervenor
Government reads
much
too
and Ford cases
in West Coast Seafood Processors
had
appeal from the summary judgment decision that
and by
final
between this case and West Coast Seafood Processors
principal difference
protective notice
Inc
moot once the
no party appeals. Govt
that the proposed
is
1141 1142 43 9th Cir 1981 they
into the West Coast Seafood Processors
The
is
if
F2d
protective
Relying instead on West Coast Seafood
v Ford
filing
May 22 2014
121
claim that the appeal
these basic propositions
of
by
not filed
it
intervened
the time the appeal of the order denying intervention
was
considered time to notice an appeal from the merits judgment had long since
expired
See Docket
N D Cal case
reversed
filed
the decision
Jan 25 2001
NOM
has
a late noticed appeal from
filed
F3d
at
666
if
of
See Brennan 503
Fed Prac
10
the Court of Appeals
had
Appeals would have had no
the proposed
protective notice of appeal
Circuit has expressly recognized
125
result even
denying intervention the Court
jurisdiction to consider
Here
As a
v NRDC No 3 01 cv 00421
intervenor
procedure
F2d at 803
that the Ninth
see also
Proc Juris
Mausolf
3902.1
2d
ed
That preserves the Ninth
final
judgment in the event either the Ninth Circuit or
motion
In
denial of
sum
governing precedent
a motion
judgment by the
NOM
has done here
Respondents
and
district court
the proposed
NOMs
The
is therefore
by the subsequent
of a
entry of final
decision not to appeal by the original parties
has properly
intervenor
C NOMs
Court holds that
Ninth Circuit holds that an appeal
of the
to intervene is not mooted
when
this
appeal from the
improperly denied 2
was
to intervene
NOMs
Circuits jurisdiction to consider
jurisdictional bar
filed a protective notice
of
appeal as
claimed by the Government
nonexistent
members do have Article

Judgment
III
standing to appeal from the
District Courts
Both sets
of
Respondents
have also contended that
should be denied on the ground that there
below because
Resp
at
standing
they assert
2 Plaintiffs
is
Resp
required for
it
at
to
Perry 133
The Governments
LULAC
no
NOMs members do
petition for writ of certiorari
Hollingsworth
is
reliance
jurisdiction in the
does not contest
pursue the appeal below
Court
S Ct 2652
2013
on Ford 650
n1
ours
are
more akin
is
not
and
F2d at 1143
v
of
Appeals
standing
Govt
that Article III
ultimately to
clearly reiterated
to those presented
case like United States
Court
file
This Courts recent decision in
the Ninth Circuit expressly distinguished
circumstances nearly identical
stay application
not have Article III
2 3 17 19 NOM
with this
NOMs
Ford
is
that the intervenor
likewise unavailing
In
Ford from a case involving
LULAC
here
Rather
131
F3d
at 1301
the facts of this case
thirdparty
3
to those of
the Eleventh
Neither set of Respondents
challenges
associational standing under
standing for any of its
Circuits decision
in Purcell
NAACP v Alabama
members
11
if
it
NOM
itself
has
can establish Article
III
must
have standing in order to pursue an appeal when the original
independently
parties decline to do
so Id
at
2661 62 2668
who have
door on appeals by intervenors
2659
NOMs motion
by the Ninth Circuit
independent Article
Part III
B below
then
Oakland 95
it
its
if
Brennan 608
Post judgment
met
1412
9th
See e
Cir 1996
Article IIIs
This
is
1319 1328
9th
Cir 1998
its
why
set out
standing
it
seek s
Cir1979
judgment
members rights
g Alameda
of
criteria
own
asserts
right or as association
12
pursuing an
is
was
an
F2d
appropriate
allowed
of
if
at 1328
the
standing criteria
association
Martin 150
on behalf
City
Alameda County
of
traditional
as
would be avoided or
Legal Aid Society 608
may be
has
in
fully
by alleging a threat
Aid Society
appeal
See Wiggins
NOM
NOM
Newspapers Inc
to reverse that
and meet
NOM
more
F3d 671
considering whether membership organization intervenor
to appeal either in its
members
its
holding that intervenor
quoting Legal
true even though the standing
representing
intervention for purposes
act promptly after
intervenors
for
at
claim is pending review
of its
there would be no jurisdictional bar to
appeal succeeds
F2d
own Id
their
of
grounds
standing and the merits
particularized injury from the order
redressed
several
standing
and those arguments are
F3d 1406
to appeal because
standing
either the Ninth Circuit or this Court agrees that
If
III
III
appeal from the merits judgment below
of
Article III
to intervene articulated
have independent Article
But Hollingsworth did not close the
of its
674 75
had
7th
standing
members
II
Respondents Arguments that
NOM
is Unlikely
to
Succeed
Either
in Getting this Court to Grant a Writ of Certiorari or Ultimately
on
Challenge
the Merits of the Substantive
This Court
Has Already
more than a
There
is
soon grant
will
by
presented
Respondents
But Overlook That
on
Utah Case
reasonable
certiorari
this
All
Issued a Stay of the Parallel
the constitutional
issues
case
appear to concede
that there
is
strong likelihood that this
longstanding
Court
soon grant certiorari in
will
case challenging
state laws defining marriage as between
a man and a
woman
they recognize
that this Court has previously granted certiorari in such
Hollingsworth
v Perry and
this
Court raising the same
and
circuit courts.
suffices to
demonstrate
certiorari.
Maryland
Without
although
different
it
citation
at
Govt
Resp
at 12
suggest that the
reasonable
as
it
works
its
way through
see also Plaintiffs
Resp
S Ct 1 2
2012
at
21 22
Court
Roberts
Court
may consider
possibility does
case
to
various district
That alone
will grant
CJ in chambers
any authority the Government Respondents
assert that
similar legal issues in a
not satisfy the requirement that
NOM
probability that this Court will grant certiorari in this case.
emphasis in original
same
issues might
different parties
Court ultimately takes
holds argument
13
King 133
of
case that mere
a reasonable
this
legal issue
is possible that this
show
involving
that many other cases are likely to be presented
Resp
Govt
Indeed
and
come
It is
simply not enough,
before this Court in
different state interests.
this case
in one of the several
they contend
different case
Id But
whether or not
from Oregon or instead grants
other cases currently headed
13
to
certiorari
here
is
and
beside the
point
In such circumstances
pending resolution
SUPREME
until
issues
many
5.9
decision is reached
practice of this Court is to
9th
ed 2007
g Keney v New
U S 440
York 388
by
1967
Lazaroff 545
v Doe
Illinois
also occur
U S 1142
526
when
decision
The Maryland
case or that
be set
it
1999
2005
Board
cf id at
of all
citing
of
them on
Landau
of Trustees
5.12
GVR
of the cases
bit further along
Court
or even
U S 456
in the queue
settles the question being
Indeed
it
may
addressed
is
all
more
meet
this
citing
of related
petitions
a new and
1967
is
that there be
Holding
for
summary
that standard even
likely to
be the case where
if
one
this
in lower courts across the country
question surrounding this important
simply not credible to assume that
b In
of the University of
be the preferred course in order to have consistency
the constitutional
or similar
this case be the lead
All that is required
summary affirmance
5.12
at
the merits in the light of
reasonable probability that this Court will grant certiorari.
reversal or
identical
a summary affirmances may
a number
Fording 388
argument
AL
may be held
is entered
King standard does not require that
for oral
id
ET
cases
the Court pending its plenary
the Court has under consideration
and summarilydisposed
controlling
US 1101
hold
GRESSMAN
by the Court in a pending case raising
ruling following which the summary reconsideration order
Hoevenaar
See
a petition for certiorari
the certiorari papers are held
instances
issues
of another case raising identical
COURT PRACTICE
citing
common
the
Court
14
will
and
across states on
contentious issue
not grant certiorari in one of
It
is
when
those cases
so
many long standing
are being held unconstitutional
Moreover
State laws
by the lower courts
and
constitutional
provisions
the importance of the jurisdictional issues that have been
given
nondefense
raised in the
wake
tactics not
of
Hollingsworth this Courts concern in Windsor that
become
strong argument that
common
has standing
it
to
Hollingsworth there
notwithstanding
133
practice,
is
SCt at 2688
and NOMs
appeal the adverse judgment below
a decent
chance
a
reasonable
probability
that this Court would grant certiorari in this case as well as in one
the pure merits cases
certainly granted certiorari in Hollingsworth in spite of
It
perhaps because of the important
contrary to Plaintiffss
claim that
Hollingsworth, Plaintiffs
did not include
a county
Resp
clerk
its voter
make
presented
jurisdictional questions that case
at
18
whose
it
not The
is
intervenors
NOM
laws
harm
particularized claims of
a vote negation claim as
and
in Hollingsworth
duties include enforcement of marriage
and
or
from
this case is materially indistinguishable
or wedding service providers with concrete
Neither did they
of
has made here on behalf
of
members
Given the short time since Windsor and Hollingsworth were decided in which
defense abdiction by State Attorneys
Plaintiffs
reliance on Landis
seeks to overturn the judgment.

cart before the horse
and
case
it
If
who
is
an absence
Plaintiffs
NOMs members
is allowed to intervene
on
N Am Co 299 U S 248
turns on their claim that there
for it
General has become
their
Resp
of
at
common
255
any party
22
have Article
III
1936
15
is
the
misplaced
to this case
who
That claim gets the merits

standing as
behalf then there would be a
seeks to overturn the judgment.
practice,
it
asserts
party
to this
validity
of
NOMs
serious efforts to articulate grounds for standing that survive this
Courts holding in Hollingsworth
not
been but should be
10 c Thus
even
if
that the Maryland
certiorari in this
by
There
important question
this Court,
warranting
the Government Respondents
is
set out in its Application
Although the Government Respondents
minimize
at
contend
22
challenges
stay by this Court weighs
Herbert
more
have recently ruled that the
That
is
NOMs
when
See Baker
Nelson 409
minimize the precedential value
Miranda 422
U S 332 344
developments
may undermine
of
1972
a
Ct
Plaintiffs
893
Jan
dozen
marriage
a man and
U S 810
of
is
citing
1972
fair
S Ct at 2
attempt to
6 2014
unconstitutional
of this
Plaintiffs
Court holds
are
attempt to
summary dispositions
That
district courts that
woman
to the effect that subsequent
16
address similar
governing precedent
Baker by
also
stay in a case raising identical
definition of
still
is
arguments have not
and
and
heavily than the bakers
traditional
particularly true
Kitchen 134
that State laws defining marriage as between
constitutional
that
there
King 133
below.
they completely overlook
that this Court has already granted
constitutional
below
Stay
for
of the 13 federal courts to consider
Govt Resp
challenges,
probability of a grant of
by no means a certainty that
albeit
that the Court will then reverse the decision
been successful in any
under Rule
which they are not
reverse the merits judgment
will
NOM
certiorari
met here
fair prospect,
Court
For the reasons
is
law that has
of federal
are correct
King standard requires a reasonable
case that standard
this
prospect
settled
an
is
in Hicks
doctrinal
precedential weight
Resp
Plaintiffs
at 22
n 11
unambiguous terms that
Court
until
but they nowhere
the
mention that Hicks also held in
lower courts are bound by summary decisions by
them
such time as the Court informs
they
that
this
Hicks 422
are not.
U S at 344 45
The
relied
on
overrule
and
lower courts that have recently struck
Baker
As
last
down
state marriage laws have all
June in Windsor which did not purport
this Court is well
aware Windsor was
a closely divided case
and
the majority opinion relied heavily on federalism principles
of States as the
2689 92
primary determiners of marriage policy
see also
of the majoritys
id
at 2697
opinion
Roberts
To
CJ dissenting
fair
In any event
Respondents
not what the
was
it
was met
Ct
at
noting the federalism basis
for
is
not met in
in the
Utah case
it
King with a
from Maryland
test
whatever the standard
contention that
determined that
challenge
is
Windsor 133
Government Respondents
prospect standard from Maryland
reverse standard which
the historic role
be sure there are other parts of the Windsor majority
opinion that point the other direction but the
conflate the
to
a stay
this case
it
is
hard
when
seem
certain
to
to
King requires
to credit
this
Court has already
in which the identical constitutional
made
C This
Court has already
settled the likelihood
of irreparable
harm inquiry
This Courts grant
the Maryland
of a stay in the
Utah
King standard namely the
result from the denial of
stay.
case also settles the third prong of
likelihood
that irreparable
Among NOMs members on whose
17
harm
behalf
it
will
seeks
to intervene under the authority of
NAACP v Alabama
responsible for the enforcement of Oregons constitutional
of
marriage and a voter who formed part
of the sovereign
Oregon who added Oregons long standing
definition of
a county
are
clerk
and statutory definition
majority of the people of
marriage
to the State
Constitution
When
granting the stay in the
the
harm was
this
Court necessarily determined
had demonstrated a
that the stay applicants in the case
harm But
Utah case
not to themselves personally
likelihood
was
It
interests of the state in having an important constitutional
by
invalidated
a federal court
judgment
is
case that
policy
Oregon
In
done by county clerks one
of
of irreparable
to the sovereign
policy
judgment
the actual implementation of that policy
whom
was adoptedconstitutionally
is
a member
of
NOM
And
in this
codified
by the ultimate sovereign
authority in the State the voters at least one of
whom
is
another
of
NOMs
members
the sovereign
irreparable
harm
constitutional
weight to
judgment
legislature
to be of the
of the people of the State of
that flows from
it
amendment adopted
policy
seem
Oregon and hence the
being invalidated
directly
judgments expressed
in
by
mere
view that they can wish away
by simply not defending
the people or by giving greater
statutory pronouncements by the
than to the policy judgments expressed by the people by way
Constitution
Govt
Courts grant of
Resp
at
stay in the
24 25
Utah
of their
Similarly Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish this
case by arguing that the defendants
18
in that case
were
engaged in a vigorous defense
laws
Plaintiffs
nature
of the
be invalid
III
at
26 Such
harm caused when a

anything the harm
if
invalidated
Resp
at the behest
of the constitutionality
arguments do not undermine the irreparable
sovereign
act of the people of the State is held to
even greater when the sovereigns
is
and encouragement
NOM
Motion
Short
to Intervene Also Fall
NOMs
claim that
it
is
is Unlikely
likely to succeed
judgment
is
officials 5
of its elected
Respondents Arguments that
Critical to
marriage
of Utahs
to
Succeed on
on the merits
its
of its
intervention appeal is that the fact that under governing Ninth Circuit precedent
was
the district court
motion
intervention
See Southwest
810 819 9th Cir 2001
Ctr for
Biological Diversity
do so either with respect
It did not
But once
timeliness or its claim of protectable interests
true as they must
Fed
be
non conclusory
obligated to accept as true all
the likelihood that
R Civ P 24a either by the Ninth
NOMs
to
facts in
Berg 268
NOMs
or
if
claim
F3d
of
those facts are accepted as
as of right under
right to intervene
Circuit
NOMs
necessary by
this
Court
is
strong
Moreover
contrary to Respondents
jurisdiction over the claims of
Plaintiffs
1154
2013
reliance on Clapper
is
harm
invalidated
NOM
is
below The Government
USA
not arguing that
no one would have
that a sovereign
the district court lacked
members do have standing and
irreparable
is
set of Plaintiffs
again beside the point
standing because otherwise

its
one
contention
standing to
sue
133
it
S Ct 1138
should have
It is
arguing that
that they are sufficiently connected
state suffers
by a federal court to meet
this
19
when a
prong
to the
provision of its constitution
of the
Maryland
King test
Respondents
when
contend
confronted
with
collude
Govt Resp
for
that the Attorney General did not acquiesce
with the two complaints
to reach
plaintiffs
at
example
filed in this case
a particular
Similarly the
Plaintiff
outcome
as
Respondents
and stand
NOM
silently
by
or
has contended.
argue that
The
Defendants
in this case continued enforcing Oregons marriage bans by refusing to issue or
sanction
the issuance
declined
to defend
added
between one
marriage.
the
of the
same sex
it
claim
is
woman
to
same sex
couples even as they
Resp
Plaintiffs
Oregons marriage
5a
Plaintiffs challenged
Resp
which she was
memo directing
citing
both aspects of that
was
filed the
state agencies to
all
DCt Dkt
Windsor 133
Windsor 133
See
had taken
therefore no longer enforcing the
as
10
In other
Windsor and the cases cited in Windsor, as
at 17
Windsor
entitled
provides that
a marriage
after the lead complaint
marriages performed in other states
the Executive
amendment
ing] as well as the ban on performing marriages
General issued a
Plaintiffs
17 emphasis
at
shall be valid or legally recognized
same sex The day
the antithesis of
different case if
refund
one
this case does not resemble
Plaintiffs
to
its political subdivisions that only
ban on recognize
of the Attorney
recognize
Oregon and
man and
between persons
Rather
licenses
the bans constitutionality.
Ore Const Art 15
amendment
words
marriage
But those claims are not true
It is the policy of
office
of
S Ct at
2684
S Ct at 2686
87
It
would be
the further step of paying Windsor the
under the
law
20
District Courts ruling
and was
As
liberally
a result every
indulgence
granted should be
made
in favor of intervention
See United States
which
is already to
be
F3d
City of Los Angeles 288
391 398 9th Cir 2002
The Ninth
Circuit is likely to hold that
intervene
was timely
In its motion to intervene
by sworn Declarations including
The Chairman
2014 that public
policy
of
join Plaintiffs
relationships were concerned
country
to identify
county clerks in
DCt Dkt
had been
DCt Dkt
In late
marriage
law
but was instead going to
challenge the President
to discover
that
willing
many
and
of
NOM
began trying
able to intervene
of the people
retaliation
because
to
who would
redefined in Oregon to encompass
about possible
March
defend
suffer
same sex
of various
forms
suffered by supporters of true marriage elsewhere
88 Brown Decl
was
that the Attorney General of Oregon
who might be
harms if marriage was
retaliation that
March
learned in February or
in the Oregon marriage case
March 2014
constitutional
marriage law only
particularized
NOM
the Board of
to intervene
learning in
to identify someone in Oregon
Oregons
factual allegations supported
the following
not only not going to defend Oregons
actively
several
to
110 Eastman Decl

Upon
made
groups in Oregon were trying
Oregon who might be willing
NOM
NOMs motion
of
in the
or early April
2014 NOMs
President inquired whether
lawyers with the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
21
would be willing to
a county
represent
clerk or other entity in Oregon
During the second week
of
April an attorney with the Center
had telephone
Constitutional Jurisprudence
the legal standing to
Eastman Decl
intervene in the case
who had
conversations
with several individuals who had colorable claims
or
in person meetings
of standing
Oregon marriage case either on their own behalf or on behalf
Eastman Decl
Every one
elsewhere
of the individuals expressed
harassment and
in the country
During one
held during the second week
in this action
had
advised
they should be ready to begin issuing marriage licenses to
defendants
was
after the
The
US
for
hearing
on
all
April 23
that
county clerks that
same sex
Registrars email to county clerks dated April
District
already prepared a
account
was informed
2014
couples
because
the
Eastman Decl
that the Department
that the
summary judgment
April
of
were not going to appeal the expected ruling that Oregons marriage law
unconstitutional
their businesses
other forms of retaliation as has
for Constitutional Jurisprudence
a defendant
the State Registrar
immediately
of
in the
concern that intervening in the
Eastman Decl
of the conversations
with the Center
the attorney
to intervene
case might result in threats
occurred
for
of Justice will
Court
new
same sex
will
not defend Oregons
hear on April
Application
marriages,
and
License
that
22
23, that
reaffirmed
Oregon Vital Records had
and Record
8 2014
of
Marriage form
the judge rules that
to
same sex
marriages are legal in Oregon the
paper copies to county marriage
The
Ex
t his
that
will likely
had been
April 17
On
Jurisprudence
was
2014
advised
immediately
18
2014 advised
of the effective
date of the
be happening on April 23 Eastman Decl
in discussions
10
The
Jurisprudence
had
NOM
was
and
amended
of the risk of
threats harassment and
preventing individuals with standing from intervening in the
NOM
a
on
their
own
of April
Eastman Decl
19 2014
to intervene
members who had
counsel
for
case prepared a motion
to postpone
the April
7
for
NOM
and accompanying
NOM's president
complaints in the two consolidated
a motion
members if any
affiliated
with
memorandum
of
a particularized stake in the outcome of
supporting declaration
of prior hearings in the
preparing
Eastman Decl
retaliation
that because
Over the weekend
the case prepared
whom he
the attorney with the Center for Constitutional
NOM
legal standing
interviewed
with
decided against intervening in the case because of the
Oregon counsel prepared a motion
to the
intervenors
could likely assert third party standing on behalf of its
them had
11
day
advised
retaliation that
case
next
the attorney with the Center for Constitutional
that the last of the potential
risk of threats harassment
law
B
9
of
5 Ex
Registrars email to county clerks dated April
notified
immediately provide
records office will
Eastman Decl
offices
county clerks that they would be
new forms and
state vital
23
23
for
prepared answers
cases reviewed the transcripts
admission pro hac vice began
2014 hearing began preparing a
brief
in opposition to the two motions for
accounts
that raised potential
ethics rules
and
the hearing on
substantive
rulings
made
NOM
intervene sooner than the
Ex
A at
April 23
an
2014 and
Transcript of
and under
motion.
however
governing Ninth
as true the nonconclusory
Southwest
the district
48 emphasis
Ctr 268
court found
F3d at
that
prior to the dispositive motion hearing,
any Oregon
and protectable interests
significant
May 14
before any
for failing to notify the court of its intent to
40 hour window
had
before
court
to accept
intervention
the relevant
21 2014
April
credible reason for failing to determine whether
of its organization
days ago.
Monday
allegations of fact
no credible reason
and submitted no
on
the district
to that explicit requirement
provided
member
held
district court is required
in support of
on
news
Eastman Dec
to intervene
had been made by
all nonconclusory
Circuit precedent
819 Contrary
motion
summary judgment was
These are
allegations
filed its
after seeing
mandatory recusal issues researched
case law dealing with recusal
NOM
12
DCt Dkt
2014 hearing
115
until
Plaintiffs
only
Resp
added
nonconclusory
In other
words
facts
the district
court declined to accept as true basic
on which NOMs motion
to intervene
the motion timely under the circumstances
Plaintiffs apparently
It
was based
and which made
refused to credit that the Attorney
understand the significance
of the district
courts finding
that these factual claims were not credible, because they seek to recharacterize
NOM
failed to offer
Resp
at 11
the district courts ruling as stating that

justification for its late filing.
Plaintiffs
24
n8
But
credible legal
that
is
not
what
the
Generals decision
to actively join Plaintiffs
known by
NOM
until
filed its response
to the Plaintiffs
procedure
NOM
did not
did not
U S Department
The
know
until April
17 2014
persuade an Oregon county
Oregons
for
marriage law
that
summary judgment
know
official to intervene
And
contrary to the
Windsor case 133
the factual allegation that
harassment and
others intervening on their
own behalf a
to assert third party standing
district
on behalf
court said see Plaintiffs
redefine credible to
mean
Resp
of its
summary judgment.
of
made
precondition for
members under
48 and
just doesnt
Plaintiffs
when
definitively created
it
a barrier to
NOMs
on May
9 2014 DCt
pass muster
NOM
now
says that
factual assertion in its Application
May 19 2014
9th
Cir Dkt
5 at
for
iii
at
10
That claim
109
at
Emergency State
23
25
it
position that they would not appeal a
Resp
Dkt
ability
attempt to
is
inaccurate
the factual assertion in its reply brief in support of intervention
the district court
became
NAACP v Alabama
Plaintiffs
time in this Application
did not learn until April 8 of the Defendants
NOM
had
at
NOM
own members who had
necessary
Ex A
sufficient
Plaintiffs claim that For the first
grant
NOM
in the case in order to defend
to identify its
retaliation
in its efforts to
protectable interests at stake in the Oregon litigation at that point
clear that fears of
of
an appeal from any judgment
the district court declined to accept as true that
quite reasonably only began seeking
The
week
the second
until
it
not
of Justice in the
district court refused to credit
them was
defend
marriage laws were unconstitutional
employed by the
at 2684.7
to
motions
respective
court also refused to credit that
March 2014 when
the latter part of
April that the Attorney General would not be filing
Ct
on
marriage law as opposed to merely declining
Oregons
district
attacks
And
it
repeated
filed in the
the
filed in
same
Ninth Circuit on
Although the determination
court
more
the timeliness
requirement
of timeliness is
for intervention
leniently than for permissive intervention
serious harm.
Even more
application
of the
law which
v Sprague
Giuliani 126
F3d 372
is
The
of fact
abuse
district
was an
and
ed
This
of discretion
is particularly
of the
552
of
more
9th Cir 1984
eg
See
of discretion
adhere to proper legal
citing
normally follow
of
NOMs
The
NOMs
finding that
is
the standard
Miller 7C
is timely
and
Fed Prac
in light of all
Proc Civ
1916
3d
principle that Rule 24 has
in favor of applicants for intervention.
AFL CIO v
Miller 7A
Spellman 684
Fed Prac and Proc
equitable considerations
proposed intervenors
26
against which the motions
U S Forest Serv 630 F3d 1173
practical
allegations
motion was untimely was
Moreover NOMs motion
Wright
Soc
nonconclusory
law established by the Ninth Circuit in
Const Trades Council
see also Wilderness
Rule broadly in favor
of the likelihood
9th Cir 1998 Marisol
failure to
liberal construction
627 630 9th Cir 1982
2011 we
an abuse
true against the background
Washington State Bldg
1972
right should be treated
be based on an erroneous
refusal to accept as true
F3d at 819
received
of the trial
discretion
must be assessed Wright
traditionally
because
1304
2d Cir 1997
the circumstances of the case, which
timeliness
of itself
F3d 1301
erroneous application
an abuse
of
Or 745 F2d 550
State of
in
is
135
375
courts
Ctr 268
Southwest
therefore
of
as
the determination cannot
significantly
United States
standards
United States
within the discretion
1179
and
F2d
1904
9th Cir
construe the
quoting City of Los Angeles 288
F3d at 397
and
circumstances
given
here combined
the importance of
with the rule
NOMs
jurisdiction over the claims in this
that this Court will
Circuit does
reverse
F3d
Ctr 268
Southwest
demonstrate a likelihood
intervention
And
citing
at
818
At the very least the
of liberal construction
on the merits
of success
even
intervention
case there
NOMs appeal
to the district courts full
at least a
is
of
in favor of
reasonable
the district courts denial of intervention
not even though
abuse
of discretion
probability
if
the Ninth
matters are not common fodder
here
But
there
is
an even more important reason why NOMs motion would
be found timely by the Ninth Circuit and by
recognized
F2d
known
at
Court Both Courts have
that motions to intervene are timely even
protect appellate rights
939
this
9th Cir 1991 Although
727
10 t he
only time one can
court enters judgment.
W D Tenn 2009
Plaintiffs claim
Defendants
were unlikely
know whether
Clarke
post judgment
U S at 395 n 16
United Airlines 432
likely
that
if
necessary
Yniguez
NOM
Arizona
should have
to appeal, Plaintiffs
a party intends to appeal
Baptist Meml Healthcare
Corp
to
264
Resp
after a
is
FR D 375
postjudgment
380
427
affd
motion to intervene
time
1044 45
9th
Garage
that
an appeal has
for filing
NOM
F Appx
is generally
will
Serv Inc
536
6th
Cir 2011
considered
expired, Tocher
Cir 2000 abrogated on
Wrecker
431
if
City of Santa
other grounds
U S 424
timely
2002
by
Because
it
Ana
City of
there is
filed before the
219
F3d 1040
Columbus
reasonable
prevail with its claim that its motion to intervene
27
is
v Ours
probability
was timely
NOMs members not only have
protectable interests
warranting intervention of right but those

requirements
Both sets
Plaintiffs
contend
members
are
Resp
at
NOM
and
to
contends
a judgment
that three of its
in the Plaintiffs
the Government Respondents
a generalized hypothetical
religious objection
to
assert that
his or
her
NOMs
that he or she
grievance
performing
man arguments Once
duties.
Govt
facilitating
NOM
of
court
obligated to
do
the requirements
it
of their concerns
of the
provide wedding
that
if
marriage
be forced by Oregons public accommodation
wedding services as part
law
factual allegations include
services
to
same sex Brown Decl
services in Oregon have
is redefined in
to facilitate
of their business
28
clear
for intervention of
are providers of wedding
between people
made
becomes
that they have sincerely held religious objections
NOMs members who
cease providing
was
NOMs members
marriage ceremonies
NOM
the factual assertions actually
NOMs nonconclusory
standing
More than one
who have informed
informed
NOM
NOMs members meet both
for Article III
24 And
are fully credited as the district
that the interests of
right
a t base
marriage laws
Those are straw
by
at
presented only
might have a moral or
that
claims as merely
of Oregons
that this case proceeded
Resp
NOMs
try to characterize
example
unhappy
Plaintiffs
county clerk
for
meet the
standing
generalized interests in enforcement
Respondents
of
asserting
favor.
for Article III
interests
Oregon
they would
such marriages or
Brown Decl
NOMs members who
provide wedding
that they fear retaliation against their businesses
in this litigation
Brown Decl
Another
of
NOMs members
NOM
also has
Eastman Decl
same sex
an
is
who
him
licenses
of the
clerk
same sex
if
in that county
named
as
an
Brown Decl
to issuing
Eastman Decl
member would
in the Oregon
like to intervene
is
concerned about the risk
of its
of
members
Instead of accepting
these nonconclusory
required to do under Southwest
NOMs members
Plaintiffs
of his or
her
Ctr 268
even existed
Resp
assertion that its county clerk
performance
is
religious objections
harassment and would welcome NOMs intervention on behalf
moving target.
he
if
in favor of
marriage were redefined in Oregon to
marriage case to defend Oregons marriage law but
whether
voted
elected county clerk in Oregon with
member would have
relationships
NOMs county
Eastman Decl
intervenors
marriage
clerk
marriage licenses to persons
named as
NOMs county
encompass
of
voter
retaliation against
a member who
responsibility for the issuance
an Oregon
is
Brown Decl
in this litigation
they are
if
NOM
Measure 36 in 2004 but who also fears
intervenor
services have informed
F3d
It
factual allegations
at
819
referred to
Ex A at 11 13 52
member would
official duties
29
it
was
the district court questioned
them
It
as phantoms
rejected
suffer personal
because
as true as
NOMs
harms
and a
factual
in the
of sincerely held religious objections
same sex
to facilitating
that
How
given
us even
would
I ever
Id
marriages
know
that thats
under seal the
name
the census data for someplace like
The Court
at 13
of the
Lake County
are almost no gay families registered in Lake
least
real
use that information to decide you
harm or
are
Lake County
particular individual.
little
Id
at
is
The
this
NOMs
who by
government
stating instead
definition
An agency
government.
Id
That the
at
this suit
on
am
looked at
able to at
harm is
it
for this
has provided
in this litigation
other
grievance no
the court even implicitly
member was an
elected
agency relationship with the county
not hearing official capacity
any agency
your clerk and their
local
11
district
court failed to credit
to intervene
enough information
has an
allegations as true is enough
NOMs motion
And
we
duty that they might have a
factual allegation that its county clerk
county clerk
relationship
job
is
matter how sincere does not confer standing
rejected
if
find that in fact there
proposed intervenor
than that he or she may be required to perform a
to Such a
imagine
accommodation
information as to what the clerks protectable interest
moral or religious objection
you havent
hypothetical
make an
know
I ever
County and we might be
know
50
mean
would
mean
we may
officials willing to
see also
How
harm
personal
county
for
But
nonconclusory
the Ninth Circuit to overturn
the district
to identify its
behalf of its
NOMs
members
members on
courts
its decision
insistence that
is particularly
factual
NOM
troubling
provide
NOM
the authority of this Courts decision
30
denying
brought
in
NAACP v Alabama 357
if
they intervene in their
4 7 8 Declaration
of
John
understand there are
intervenor
1958 As NOM
459
NOMs members
court seemed to accept
intimidation
U S 449
may have
face
own
C Eastman
468
Declaration
Plaintiffs
of concern
demand
the organizational
was
and
Disclosing the identities of
of
S Brown
Brian
Resp
at 49
NOMs members or
other
as the district court
would expose those members to the very harassment risks that
standing approved
by the Supreme Court in
NAACP v Alabama
to prevent
designed
Thus
the district
that the proposed
information from which their identifies could be ascertained
seemed to
and
real risk of harassment
name
think genuine issues
alleged
to the extent that the district
courts
holding
was based on
lack of the
additional detail that revelation of the members identities would have provided
was an
erroneous application
of
the
law and
NOM
is
therefore likely to succeed
it
on
the merits of its appeal
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and previously
that the Circuit
and
injunction
Justice issue the requested
pending appeal
the requested relief
application
NOM
If
the Circuit Justice
requests that
31
respectfully
requests
stay of the district courts judgment
or simply wishes to have
respectfully
NOM
it
the
is
either disinclined
input of the full
be referred to the
full
to grant
Court on this
Court
Respectfully
Roger
K Harris
John
HARRIS BERNE CHRISTENSEN

5000
SW
Meadows
Lake Oswego
OR
Road
LLP
Suite 400
97035
503 968 1475

503 968 2003 Fax
rogerhbclawyers com
Counsel for Applicant National
submitted
C Eastman
Counsel
of
Record
CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
c o Chapman Univ
One University Dr
Orange CA 92866
JURISPRUDENCE
Fowler School
877 855 3330

714 844 4817 Fax
Organization
32
for
Marriage Inc
of
Law
certify
that
APPLICATION
2014
FOR STAY
at
each
3rd day of June
via
rc
Meadows Road
Cis
x 502
CE
400
97035
Orange
Tel
Fa
xaast
icc
delivery
on Jane
list
R Fun CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE
the University
CEastman
co Chapman Uni
easec
Counsel
lxxstal
mriel of Record
96 92003
abcla
address as shown in the attached service
a1arr
LL
Suite
1T
SUPPORT
IN
2014
14755
faro
rogerl
visa
John
`
REPLY
the foregoing
copy of
cmail and
o000
Fn
this
e and complete
M9
Rage
HARRIS
Tel
served a
each of the parties and
DATED
Lake
livant Xsti3n
714
ar
Fowler School
92866
877
Dr
8553330
3444817
hrn
Organization
aaaaedu
for
rri
liar
of
SERVICE LIST
Lea
Ann
SW
OR
Portland
R Johnson
Thomas
Easton
Columbia St Suite 400
97258
1120
NW
Couch St 10
TRJohnson
T 503 790 9060

F 503790 9068
T 503 727 2157
1906
SW
perkinscoie
H Perriguey
Portland Oregon
Middleton
Jennifer
Street
OR
Eugene
97205
97401
lake law works com

T 503 227.1928
jmiddleton
F 541 484 0882
Kevin Diaz
506
SW
Avenue
OR
PO Box
40585
Suite
700
97204
5625
SW
Portland
California St
OR
OR 97240 0585
kdiaz aclu or org
T 503 227 6928

F 503227 6948
T 503 407 9048

F unknown
Anna Joyce
1162 Court
Amanda
C Goad
1313
Eighth St
Los Angeles
CA
97219
Portland
agoad
com
Mary Hazel Williams
Portland
jjlslaw
T 541 683 2506
334.2340
th
com
F 503 346 2176
Madison
503
Fl
OR 97209 4128
Portland
Lake James
th
Salem
OR
St
NE
97301
anna joyce doj state or us
T 503 378 4402
90017
F 503 378 6306
aclu org
T 213 977 9500

F unknown
Jenny
501
Hawthorne
Blvd Ste 500
OR 97214
jenny mmadkour multco us
T 503 988 3138
F 503 988 3377
T 503 727 2157

F 503346 2176
Katharine
Kristina
1120
J Holm
M Madkour
SE
NW
Portland
Couch St 10
Portland
th
Fl
OR 97209 4128
501
Misha
1120
Isaak
NW
Couch St 10
th
Fl
SE
von Ter Stegge
Hawthorne
500
katharine
von terstegge co multnomah or us
97214
T 503 988 3138
misaak perkinscoie com

503 727 2157
F 503 988 3377
T
F 503346 2086
Suite
OR
OR 97209 4128
Portland
Blvd
Portland
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 4 2014 1 32 22
Subject
FW
Attachments
13A1173
Sheila
13A1173
PM
NOM
NOM
Geiger Order
Geiger Order pdf
DENIED
From Danny
Sent
To
jeastman
Joyce Anna
Cc
Bickell
Wednesday
jenny
Subject
mailto dbickell
chapman edu
anna joyce
m madkour
13A1173
supremecourt
gov
2014 1 30 PM
June 04
roger
hbclawyers
com
sshapiro
aclu
org
Lea Ann Easton
michael
casper
doj state or us
doj state or us
multco
NOM
us
katevts
multco
us
Geiger Order
Dear Counsel
The order
of
the Court denying
Thank you
Danny
Bickell
202 479 3024
the applica on for stay
is
aached
Please feel free
to contact
me
with any ques ons
ORDER
LIST
572
US
WEDNESDAY
ORDER
13A1173
NATL
ORGANIZATION
The
FOR
application
by him referred
IN
JUNE
PENDING
MARRIAGE
2014
CASE
GEIGER
for stay presented
to the Court is denied
to
DEANNA
Justice
ET
AL
Kennedy
and
Sheila H
MADKOUR
From
Potter
To
Jenny
Sent
6 6 2014 9 11 18
Subject
Geiger
Jenny and
We
m morf
a reply today
as moot
Would
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
in the
you like
to
Ninth
Phone
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
971
VON TER STEGGE
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
Circuit on our motion to
join in the
Potter
Portland
Katharine
katevts
multco us
Ninth Circuit reply in support of motion to dismiss
Sheila
1515
multco us
Kate
re filing
appeal
jenny
AM
5000
reply
dismiss the
intervention
MADKOUR
Sheila H
MADKOUR
From
Jenny
To
Potter
CC
Jenny
Sent
6 6 2014 9 15 39
Subject
Re
Geiger
jenny
m morf
multco us
Katharine
VON TER STEGGE
multco us
katevts
AM
Ninth Circuit reply in support of motion to dismiss
Yes
Jenny
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
fax
NOTICE
This
transmission
On
message
Jun 6 2014
Fri
and
or the attachments
may
at
9 11
AM
Potter Sheila
by
reply email
sheila
information
and
protected
then destroy
potter
all
by
the attorney
copies of
doj state or us
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
received
this
Thank you
wrote
Jenny and Kate
We
re
ling
a reply today in the Ninth Circuit on our motion to dismiss the intervention
Would you
appeal as
moot
like to join in the reply
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
Fifth
OR
Avenue
Justice
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
NOTICE
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
971 673 5000
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Joyce Anna
To
jenny
m madkour
Sent
6 11 2014 7 53 08
Subject
Geiger
multco us
AM
Hi Jenny
We
re going
Co
want
to
to
be filing
join that
one
a motion to
as well
Thanks
Anna
Anna
Joyce
Solicitor General
Oregon
Department
of
Justice
dismiss NOM
protective
notice
of
appeal
Does
Mult
MADKOUR
From
Jenny
To
Joyce Anna
Sent
6 11 2014 8 14 35
Subject
Re
AM
Geiger
Yes
On
Wednesday
June 11 2014
Joyce
Anna
anna joyce
wrote
doj state or us
Hi Jenny
We
be
re going to
join that
filing
a motion to dismiss
NOM
protective
Does Mult Co want
notice of appeal
to
one as well
Thanks
Anna
Anna
Joyce
General
Solicitor
Oregon
Department
of Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
Jenny
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
Madkour
County Attorney
501 SE
Hawthorne
Portland
em
jenny
ph
503 988 3138
fax
Blvd
Suite
500
Oregon 97214
madkour
multco us
503 988 3377
NOTICE
This
transmission
message
and
or the attachments
may
by
reply email
information
and
protected
then destroy
all
by
the attorney
copies of
this
client
privilege
transmission
If
you have
Thank you
received
this
From
Joyce Anna
To
Jenny
MADKOUR
Sent
6 13 2014 8 53 48
Subject
RE
Would
you like
From
Jenny MADKOUR
Sent
Wednesday
To
Joyce
Subject
to
review
before
mailto
June
AM
Geiger
11
we
jenny
2014
file
m madkour
multco us
8 15 AM
Anna
Re
Geiger
Yes
On
Wednesday
anna
June
joyce
11
2014
doj state
Joyce
Anna
or us mailto
anna
joyce
doj state
or us
wrote
Hi Jenny
We
re going
Co
want
to
to
be filing
join that
a motion to
one
dismiss NOM
protective
notice
of
appeal
Does
Mult
as well
Thanks
Anna
Anna
Joyce
Solicitor General
Oregon
Department
of
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
Jenny M
you have
keep
Hawthorne
received
contents
Blvd
Portland
Oregon
em
jenny
m madkour
ph
503
503
988
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
Suite
500
97214
multco us mailto
jenny
m morf multco us
3138
988
This
the
attorney
the
sender
you
If
Madkour
501
NOTICE
the
law
from your system
Attorney
SE
information
applicable
that
County
fax
NOTICE
3377
message
client
and
or the
privilege
immediately
attachments
If
you have
by reply email
and
may contain
received
then
confidential
information
destroy
all
copies
of
protected
by
please notify
this transmission
Thank
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 17 2014 3 14 17
Subject
6th Circuit Sets Hearing
Notice
This communication
intended
Sheila
recipient
for
you should delete
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
just
with
including
avoiding
th
on August 6
this
notified
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
and
is strictly
IRS regulations
any attachments
party
Circuit
contain
is
we
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the

distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
not intended
to another
read notice that the 6

th
any attachments
individual
Notice 2
PM
including
specific
and are hereby
attachments
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
has set single session on appeals from Ohio Michigan
Kentucky
and
Tennessee
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
6 17 2014 3 26 17
Subject
RE
Wow
All
four
on the
Ann
Easton
From
Lea
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Subject
Sheila
6th
Notice
June
same
day
mailto
LEaston
2014
3 14 PM
17
communication
including
intended
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
materials
and
distribution
any attachments
of
com
Hearing
information
the
dorsayindianlaw
Circuit Sets
This
PM
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
and
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
contained
cannot
ii
To
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
promoting
for the
purpose
marketing
including
of
we
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
party
any U S
is
under
not
the
federal
intended
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
I
just read
Kentucky
and
notice
that
Tennessee
the
6th
on August
Circuit has set single

6th
session
on appeals
from Ohio
Michigan
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 17 2014 3 27 09
Subject
RE
Apparently
From
Sent
To
Potter
mailto sheila
June 17
SCOTUS
Hearing on Affordable Care Act
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 26 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Wow
Sent
RE 6th
Circuit
Lea Ann Easton
Potter
LEaston
mailto
June 17
Tuesday
Sets Hearing
on the same day
All four
From
Sheila
Notice
This communication
intended
recipient
for
including
specific
To comply
communication
purpose
of
with
including
avoiding
recommending
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
and
is strictly
we
any attachments
party
Circuit
is
any transaction
by law
If
you are not the
distribution of
this
communication
prohibited
inform you that any
is
protected
not intended
to another
contain
IRS regulations
th
just
this
notified
Notice 2
any attachments
individual
you should delete
and are hereby
attachments
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 3 14 PM
Subject
PM
hearing similar to the
Sheila
Tuesday
Subject
To
one
Sheila
to
US
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
Kentucky
and
Tennessee
th
on August 6
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
6 17 2014 3 27 48
Subject
RE
Huh
Well
that
From
Lea
Sent
Tuesday
To
Ann
Potter
Subject
June
6th
one
From
Potter
Sent
Tuesday
be interesting
Easton
Sheila
RE
Apparently
To
ll
hearing
Sheila
mailto
17
Wow
four
on the
Ann
Easton
6th
Lea
Sent
Tuesday
2014
the
sheila
SCOTUS
potter
Hearing
on Affordable
doj state
Care Act
or us
3 26 PM
Circuit Sets
June
Sheila
6th
same
day
mailto
LEaston
2014
3 14 PM
17
communication
including
for a specific
are not
intended
recipient
and
distribution
any attachments
of
com
Hearing
intended
the
dorsayindianlaw
Circuit Sets
This
Hearing
information
materials
com
Easton
From
Notice
dorsayindianlaw
Hearing
similar to
June
RE
Potter
3 27 PM
listen to
Ann
Subject
LEaston
2014
Circuit Sets
Lea
To
to
mailto
17
Subject
All
PM
any attachments
individual
and
you should delete

and
are hereby
this communication
or the
may contain
purpose
and
is
privileged
protected
this communication
notified
taking
that
of
and
or shred
any disclosure
any action
based
or confidential
by law
copying
on it
is
If
you
the
or
strictly
prohibited
Notice
To
contained
cannot
ii
comply
with IRS
regulations
be used
for the
promoting
purpose
marketing
we
including
of
inform you that
any attachments
avoiding
or recommending
to
penalties
another
party
any U S
is
not
under
federal
intended
the
Internal
any transaction
tax advice
to
be used
Revenue
or matter
and
Code
or
addressed
herein
I
just read
Kentucky
notice
and
that
Tennessee
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
6th
keep
session
on appeals
from Ohio
Michigan
6th
information
applicable
that
Circuit has set single
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
the
on August
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
6 17 2014 5 20 49
Subject
RE
No
doubt
We
From
Sent
To
Potter
listen
to
mailto sheila
June 17
Sent
RE 6th
Well
From
ll
be
home page
with
it
stream arguments
but they
make
recordings available
glass of wine
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 28 PM
From
Circuit
one
Potter
LEaston
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 3 27 PM
Sheila
Sets Hearing
hearing similar to the
Sheila
mailto sheila
June 17
Tuesday
Sets Hearing
mailto
June 17
RE 6th
Apparently
SCOTUS
Hearing on Affordable Care Act
doj state or us
potter
2014 3 26 PM
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Wow
Sent
RE 6th
Circuit
All four
From
on the same day
Lea Ann Easton
Potter
Sheila
LEaston
mailto
June 17
Tuesday
Sets Hearing
Notice
This communication
intended
recipient
for
including
specific
To comply
communication
purpose
of
recommending
with
including
avoiding
that
it
may
and purpose
communication
and
any attachments
party
Circuit
we
protected
is
by law
distribution of
not intended
to
US
NOTICE
you are not the
this
communication
federal tax advice
be used
Code
or
or matter addressed
and cannot be
ii
contained
used
in this
for the
promoting marketing
or
herein
on August 6
If
prohibited
inform you that any
any transaction
th
CONFIDENTIALITY
is
to another
contain
is strictly
IRS regulations
th
just
this
notified
Notice 2
any attachments
individual
you should delete
and are hereby
attachments
com
dorsayindianlaw
2014 3 14 PM
Subject
They don
interesting to listen to
Lea Ann Easton
Potter
Sent
Circuit
that
Tuesday
Subject
To
and
Circuit
Lea Ann Easton
Huh
To
Sheila
Tuesday
Subject
To
th
could get geeky
PM
looked at 6
just
Sheila
Kentucky
and
Tennessee
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
Sent
VON TER STEGGE

H
Jenny MADKOUR
6 17 2014 6 08 05 PM
Subject
Geiger fees
From
Katharine
To
Potter
CC
Sheila
Hi Sheila
was
surprised to see that Lake
negotiate
now
is
seeking fees against us
the fees with you before filing
a petition
seeking fees against the County
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
and
if
when he
agreed not to
so did he say anything
Can you
that
tell
me
if
he
tried
could shed light on
to
why he
is
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
6 17 2014
Subject
Re
He
did not
do either
On
Jun 17
2014
katevts
at
H
VON TER STEGGE
6 25 21 PM
Sheila
Geiger fees
6 08 PM
multco us mailto
Katharine
katevts
VON TER
multco us
STEGGE
wrote
Hi Sheila
I
was
tell
surprised to
me if
see that
he tried to
say anything
that
could
Lake
negotiate
shed
is
seeking
the
light
fees
on why
fees
against
with you before

he is
now
us when
filing
seeking
fees
he agreed
von
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
County
Attorney
97214
fax
Can
against
Stegge
Senior
to
and
Thanks
Kate
not
a petition
multco us
the
if
so
you
did he
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
6 20 2014 6 03 48
Subject
Attorney
Sheila
Fees
Lea Ann Easton
PM
Geiger
Dear Sheila
am
My
following up with you about the customary
practice
fees that I charge
primarily one in which I represent injured parties
is
my
In these cases
fee
1 3 of the recovery
is
clients
most of
whom
This often results in an attorney
do no
have money to pay lawyers
payments
fee
that
are more than
400
per hour
In these cases
like in this
In domestic relations
one
cases
did not charge
which
often reduce this rate through
is
away
by the courts
if
many
do
intellectual
not paid for
property and business
can work out to upwards of
am
my practice my
the modest means program at the
who work low wage
other case I do not charge
am
a fee
my work
a fee at
because
OSB or
300 per hour
is
simply because
However
the people
who
very
are fighting
jobs and have a compelling need for justice that I
all
my
rate
like
clients
my work
with
as a child s advocate
afford to pay
simply cannot
me
appointed
and support
children
their
My
or
In
clients
another large part of
for their children are recent immigrants or

cannot turn
my
work
400 per hour
is
charged
at
300 per hour
not part of a large firm and I do not represent large businesses
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
am
able negotiate a
flat
fee which
or more
afford to pay higher attorney fees and expense
customary fee
Often I
and deduct them
in
and
commercial
that
would
litigation
theref
entities that
could
ore result in a larger
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
6 23 2014
Subject
fees
VON TER STEGGE

H
8 41 18 AM
Sheila
Hi Sheila
Do
you have any time
this
afternoon
to talk about fees
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
You know
on such a beautifu
day
From
Potter
To
Sent
6 23 2014
Subject
RE
m actually
out
From
Katharine
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
of
fees
the
VON TER
June
Sheila
H
VON TER STEGGE
12 09 05 PM
Sheila
Katharine
23
office
but
STEGGE
2014
yes
mailto
could
katevts
call
you
What
s a good
know
on such
time
multco us
8 41 AM
fees
Hi Sheila
Do
you have
Kate
von
Ter
any time this afternoon
talk
about
fees
You
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
to
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
a beautiful
day
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
6 23 2014
Subject
Re
after
is
VON TER STEGGE

H
12 11 51 PM
Sheila
fees
a good time today
or tomorrow before 10 or after 1
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
503 988 3377
Sent
To
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
Jun 23 2014
m actually
From
500
multco us
On Mon
Suite
out of the
Potter
PM
12 09
oce
June 23
Potter Sheila
but yes
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
Monday
Subject
at
could
mailto katevts
sheila
call
multco
potter
you What
doj state or us
s a
wrote
good time
us
2014 8 41 AM
Sheila
fees
Hi Sheila
Do
you have any time
this
afternoon
You know
to talk about fees
on such a beautifu
day
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
6 23 2014
Subject
Automatic
am out
have
of
the
an urgent
Trial Counsel
matter
will
office
matter
Steve
when
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
and
reply
will
for the
Lippold
please contact
respond
H
VON TER STEGGE
12 12 14 PM
Sheila
check
Division
by calling

please contact
503
my legal assistant
return
Trial Counsel
of
fees
Justice
Thank
you
947
Mary
4700
If
through
Friday
June
27
If
executive
assistant
Joan
Green
you have
an urgent
case
related
Hamilton by calling
971
673
1880
you
or Chief
Otherwise
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
6 23 2014
Subject
Re
Tomorrow
before
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
10 it
H
VON TER STEGGE
2 16 18 PM
Sheila
fees
is
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jun 23
katevts
after
Kate
2014
at
3 is
von
a good
Ter
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
3138
katevts
Jun 23
potter
m actually
Katharine
Monday
Potter
VON TER
multco us
or tomorrow
Attorney
Suite
988
500
STEGGE
wrote
before
3377
10 or after
2014
12 09 PM
of
the
Sheila
23
Potter
or us mailto
but
STEGGE
2014
Attorney
97214
office
VON TER
June
OR
County
fax
co
at
Multnomah
Portland
katevts
out
From
Subject
County
doj state
Sent
To
Katharine
katevts
time today
503
mailto
Mon
12 12 PM
Stegge
Assistant
sheila
Justice
multco us mailto
Senior
On
of
Sheila
sheila
yes
mailto
potter
could
katevts
multco us
doj state
call
you
or us
What
multco us mailto
wrote
s a good
katevts
time
multco us
8 41 AM
fees
Hi Sheila
Do
you have
Kate
von
Ter
any time this afternoon
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
tel
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
talk
about
fees
You
know
on such
a beautiful
day
Stegge
Senior
3138
to
Attorney
500
Portland
3138
co
Multnomah
503
988
OR
County
Attorney
97214
3377
tel
503
988
3377
fax
multco us
NOTICE
e mail may contain
information
that
is
privileged
confidential
or otherwise
exempt from
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
you are not
the
addressee
confidential
and
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Johnson
Sent
6 25 2014 4 09 44
Subject
CONFIDENTIAL
Attachments
0454
Thomas
Coie
R Jr Perkins Coie Kevin Diaz kdiaz aclu or org

PM
AND PRIVILEGED SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION
001 pdf AGoad Rummell Time PDF PDF

PDF PDF Time for Fee Petition pdf
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT
kdiaz
KDiaz Rummell Time pdf
aclu or
org
RSaxe Rummell Time
COMMUNICATION
Sheila
Tom
believe
just
Perkins
NOM
are timesheets for the

Rummell attorneys
Attached
The
totals
subtracting
time spent on
are as follows
Coie attorneys
301 6
Hours
Rate
you a voicemail about this
left
matters relating to
See below
96 485
Total
Jennifer
Middleton
Hours
72 4
Rate
350
Total
25 340
Kevin
Diaz
Hours
74
Rate
400
Total
29 600
Rose Saxe
Hours
40
Rate
325
Total
13 000
Amanda Goad
Hours
24 1
Rate
300
Total
7 230
Grand
171 655
total
Regarding
Perkins
from several
for this
case are
Richards
Tom
this
s intervention
compared
with
for this
time
Finally
this
Johnson at
if
accounting
to
the time
we
file
the attorney
we
a fee
email and
information or
projects
did
the vast majority of the firmwork

s
on this case
we
received
such as drafting portions of the summary judgment brief
280
at
Kristina
Holm
at
does not include time spent on tasks relating to
its
part of
litigating
would have spent

petition
340
assistance
Perkins Coie s rates
295
Nathan Christensen at
and Gabby
Also
client
we do
Perkins Coie LLP
we
case to conclusion
the merits against
NOM
and
NOM
However
intervention
s
resulted
as an
are being sent in the hope of coming to a

not waive
and work product
communications
litigating
this
in
an
intervenor
overall cost
we
will
since defeating
savings
likely
when
seek to recover
in court
attachments
Misha
Misha Isaak
Tom and
425 Misha Isaak
was a necessary
the settlement privilege

subject
although
on various
associates
230
at
As mentioned
NOM
Coie s time
other
and expressly preserve

privileges
If
the attached
settlement
our right
to
on fees
protect
billingstatements
and
information
inadvertently
reserve the right to claw back such information or

communications
is
therefore
subject
and communications
disclose
protected
to
1120
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
NOTICE
advise
perkinscoie
This communication
the sender
contents
com
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
Time Records
Hours
1 23 2014
3 4 2014
3 13 2014
3 14 2014
3 17 2014
3 18 2014
3 19 2014
3 31 2014
4 2 2014
4 11 2014
4 13 2014
4 15 2014
4 18 2014
4 19 2014
4 20 2014
4 21 2014
4 23 2014
4 23 2014
4 23 2014
4 23 2014
4 24 2014
4 24 2014
5 16 2014
5 16 2014
5 16 2014
5 19 2014
Sub total
NOM Related
4 21 2014
4 21 2014
4 22 2014
4 22 2014
4 30 2014
5 1 2014
5 2 2014
5 6 2014
5 10 2014
5 12 2014
0.25
2
0.25
0.5
0.25
Amanda Goad
Rummell
Kitzhaber
Description
Emails
re
consolidation
of cases
Review briefing to date

Emails
re
request from court
Call with client

Call with
co counsel
request from court
0.4
Review
0.1
Emails with Rummell team re briefing strategy
0.1
Emails with Rummell team re developments in other case
0.4
Review amicus briefs
0.5
Call with
1.5
Prepare supplemental
0.75
0.2
0.75
State's
SJ
re
brief
co counsel
re
Emails
re
developments
factual
Edit and discuss supp auth filing
Prep for SJ argument
1.2
Prep for SJ argument
0.75
authority
Edit and discuss supp auth filing
0.4
SJ argument prep
list
Date
for Attorney
Travel
Mock
to
Eugene for SJ argument
argument prep
Attend
oral argument
Travel
back from argument
Travel
back from argument
0.5
Emails with Rummell team re strategy
0.6
Call with client
0.3
Call re decision
0.2
Emails
1.2
Review opinion order judgment
re
prep potential
potential
injunctive relief
injunction
24.1
Time Records
for Attorney
Amanda Goad
0.5
Emails
0.3
Call re intervention
0.8
Review intervention
0.3
Emails
0.3
Review quasi recusal motion
re
re
motion
intervention
motion
motion
intervention
Edit intervention
Rummell
opp
motion
brief
0.4
Edit discuss intervention
0.2
Edit recusal response
0.5
Review and discuss
0.5
Call with
co counsel
opp
NOM
re
brief
intervention
intervention
reply
argument
Kitzhaber
5 15 2014
5 15 2014
5 15 2014
5 16 2014
5 16 2014
5 17 2014
5 18 2014
5 19 2014
5 19 2014
5 27 2014
5 27 2014
5 28 2014
5 28 2014
5 28 2014
5 29 2014
5 29 2014
5 30 2014
5 31 2014
6 1 2014
6 2 2014
6 3 2014
6 4 2014
6 10 2014
Sub total
Grand Total
0.3
Call with Diaz re intervention
0.5
Review and discuss
1.3
Draft full emergency stay opp
0.4
0.2
Edit initial
argument
draft initial
emergency stay opp
emergency stay opp
3.5
0.3
Calls with
2.1
0.5
Review
SCOTUS
stay app
3.5
Draft response to
SCOTUS
stay app
Draft response to
SCOTUS
stay app
co counsel
SCOTUS
re
stay petition
0.5
Emails
5.5
Edit response to
0.9
Call with Shapiro
3.1
Edit response to
SCOTUS
stay app
7.5
Edit response to
SCOTUS
stay app
2.4
Edit response to
SCOTUS
stay app
0.3
Emails
2.3
Edit and discuss
0.7
Review
NOM
0.1
Review
SCOTUS
0.3
Call re future case planning
49
73.1
re
re
stay app response
SCOTUS
Saxe
SCOTUS
stay app
Esseks re
SCOTUS
stay app response
SCOTUS
reply
decision
stay app response
stay app
Time Records
Date
Hours
Rummell
for Attorney Kevin Diaz
Kitzhaber
Description
1030 2013
0.5
1031 2013
11 7 2013
0.6
Discussion
1114 2013
0.3
Call
with
1125 2013
0.3
Call
and emails with
co counsel
re
12 2 2013
1.3
Call
w co counsel
complaint
plaintiffs
12 4 2013
0.4
Review amended complaint
12 5 2013
1.6
Call
12 6 2013
0.6
Review
12 9 2013
0.5
Call
1210 2013
0.8
Review complaint
1211 2013
1.5
Emails and call
0.5
Review co counseling agreement
0.2
Review
1215 2013
2.7
Draft client
1216 2013
0.4
Review
1217 2013
0.4
Calls to clients
1218 2013
4.1
Meetings
1218 2013
0.2
Emails re pro hac of
1219 2013
1.3
Review and
1219 2013
0.7
Emails and edits re retainers from clients and executed
1219 2013
0.3
Emails re pro hac of
1219 2013
1.1
Emails re response to press review of outgoing
1219 2013
0.3
Update clients re filing of complaint
1220 2013
1.3
Review and emails
1 3 2014
Call
w co counsel
re
1.3
Call
w co counsel
re
0.6
Call
with clients re case update and next steps
0.8
Call
w co counsel
0.5
Emails and call with clients re recent communications
0.3
Emails with
6.5
Attend hearing debrief call travel
1.1
Call
w co counsel
re SJ
brief
0.7
Call
w co counsel
re SJ
brief coordination
0.2
Emails
1.9
Review and
1.8
Draft
0.3
Emails re declarations
1.5
Mtg
1.7
Mtg with declarant
0.6
Review SJ
brief
1.2
Review SJ
brief
2.4
Draft client
2.2
Mtg with
1213 2013
1214 2013
1 10 2014
1 14 2014
1 16 2014
1 19 2014
1 21 2014
1 22 2015
1 24 2014
1 30 2014
2 3 2014
2 10 2014
2 11 2014
2 12 2014
2 13 2014
2 13 2014
2 13 2014
2 14 2014
2 14 2014
2 15 2014
Discussion
of
Conference
pending litigation and intervention

re merits of intervention
call
and emails re potential
co counsel
potential
State's
complaint
re
plaintiff
w co counsel
and litigation team
re participation in litigation
re
w co counsel
plaintiffs
next stetps
plaintiff
review organizational
selection
standing
follow up re potential
memo
plaintiffs
bios
complaint
re
calls
w co counsel
same
re
w co counsel
complaint
re
plaintiff
selection
emails re same with
co counsel
answer to Geiger complaint

and emails to
facts
plaintiff
allegations
co counsel
in draft
re
same
complaint
and emails
w co counsel
re
same
complaint facts
re
with clients travel and review of facts retainer agreement
co counsel
edit draft
complaint
re
mtn
to
status
co counsel
agreements
statements
consolidate review recent court decision
update SJ briefing
consolidation standing amended complaint
re status
w co counsel
re
conference
conversation
consolidation
with clients
with Geiger team
re conferral
SJ brief emails
and review
re same
co counsel
co counsel
edit
calls
declarations
w co counsel
re
in support of client
same
for
SJ
w co counsel
re settlement
travel to
emails re same
declarations
clients
and from mtg and review of declaration
emails
re declarations
w co counsel
re
and next steps
same
2 16 2014
2 16 2014
2 17 2014
2 20 2014
2 21 2014
2 28 2014
3 10 2014
3 13 2014
3 17 2014
3 28 2014
4 1 2014
4 11 2014
4 17 2014
4 17 2014
4 22 2014
4 23 2014
5 19 2014
Total
1.6
Mtg with
1.6
Review and
0.3
Email re declarations
0.5
Review announcement
0.4
Emails with
0.7
Review
0.3
Emails with
0.4
Emails with
0.5
Call
0.3
Emails with
0.9
Review amicus
0.5
Call
0.8
Call in to mtg re conferral for argument
0.6
Draft
4.5
Review
9.5
Attend hearing debrief call travel call with
1.1
Review opinion and
74
clients
edit
def's
with
and next steps
re declarations
SJ brief emails
with
re
AG's position emails
re
co counsel
w co counsel
re
re
amicus briefs
co counsel
re
amicus briefs
co counsel
re
response to court clerk
SJ
same
co counsel
same
brief
co counsel
and defendants re response to court clerk
co counsel
briefs
w co counsel
emails to
re oral
supplemental
pleadings
re recent
SJ
co counsel
re
same
argument
declaration
for
developments
and emails re same
hearing
order
co counsel
Time Records
Date
Hours
for Attorney
Rose Saxe
Rummell
1.2
Research re organizational standing
1.5
Review memos re
1126 2013
2.3
Draft
memo re
1126 2013
1.4
Draft
complaint
1127 2013
Draft
complaint
12 1 2013
12 2 2013
3.2
Draft
complaint
0.7
Call
12 4 2013
0.8
Revise complaint
12 5 2013
1.1
Call
12 6 2013
2.3
Review
12 9 2013
1210 2013
0.5
Call
0.8
Revise complaint
1211 2013
1.2
Emails and
1213 2013
0.3
Review
plaintiff
1213 2013
0.2
Review
State's
1216 2013
1217 2013
0.4
Review
plaintiff
1.5
Review and
1218 2013
0.3
Finalize
1218 2013
0.6
Review and
edit draft
1219 2013
0.5
Review and
edit draft
1219 2013
1220 2013
0.2
Emails
0.2
Review mtn
1 3 2014
1 10 2014
1 16 2014
1 24 2014
1 30 2014
2 6 2014
2 7 2014
2 13 2014
2 14 2014
2 28 2014
4 1 2014
4 11 2014
1.3
Sub Total
potential
re
complaint
plaintiffs
re
complaint
plaintiff
re
re
same
standing
selection
complaint
calls re
same
w co counsel
allegations
re
w co counsel
complaint
plaintiff
selection
complaint
in
answer to Geiger complaint

allegations
in draft
complaint
and emails
w co counsel
re
same
re
same
complaint
edit draft
pro hac vice papers
w co counsel
complaint
complaint
re
mtn
re same
to consolidate
0.7
1.8
Review SJ
2.2
Edits to draft
1.5
Edits to
2.7
Review and
0.7
Review
1.5
Review amicus
0.5
Call
co counsel
re
co counsel
re
co counsel
re status
co counsel
co counsel
SJ
calls
to consolidate
status
update
SJ briefing
consolidation standing amended complaint

conference
consolidation
re SJ
brief
re SJ
brief coordination
with Geiger team
and edit
brief
w co counsel
SJ brief emails
re
same
brief
def's
SJ brief
edit
SJ brief
briefs
w co counsel
re oral
argument
40
NOM Related Time Records for Attorney Rose

4 21 2014
4 22 2014
4 28 2014
4 29 2014
5 1 2014
5 2 2014
5 14 2014
w co counsel
bios revise complaint
plaintiff
w co counsel
Call
standing emails
research re organizational
w co counsel
call
standing in 9th circuit
organizational
organizational
w co counsel
w
Call w
Call w
Call w
Call w
1.1
Kitzhaber
Description
1125 2013
1125 2013
0.8
0.5
E mails
0.7
Review NOM's
Call
w co counsel
and call
and emails
0.3
Review
0.8
Call
2.2
Review and
0.5
Calls
recusal
intervention
w co counsel
re
and emails
emails
intervention
w co counsel
re intervention
re
intervention
edit intervention
Rummell v Kitzhaber
re NOM's
brief
motion emails
w co counsel
Saxe
re
opp
same
research re same
opposition
w co counsel
re same
emails and calls
motion to stay
w co counsel
5 15 2014
5 19 2014
5 20 2014
1.2
Review and
0.8
Call re stay
0.3
Review
State's
Review and
5 28 2014
5 29 2014
5 30 2014
Sub Total
Grand Total
revise stay opposition
motion to dismiss appeal research re same
revise
re stay
0.4
Calls re stay opposition
0.4
Review and
51.6
motion
opposition to stay
2.5
11.6
brief
and review motion
revise
SCT
w co counsel
w co counsel
emails
opposition to stay
re
mtgs with Shapiro and Esseks
same 1.2
801150
2014
TR6030
PAGE
PRINT
152116
MMS
FOR
THWX0GH
SERVICES
ACLU OF OREGON
10073
000
Rummell
PRO
et
al
BONOACLU
Civil
TO
Matter
Rights
COVER
00
QUOTED
RECEIVABLES
00
TODAFT
FEES
CREDITS
00
TODATE
COSTS
BILLED
RETAINERS
00
TODATE
TOTAL
BIALRD
00
BILLING
RrALTZATION
IN
TRUST
LAST BILLING
LAST
PAYMENT
DATE
LAST
PAYMENT
AMOUNT
OPEN
DATE
111213
BOA
LAST
00
11014
PORT
AND
TK
JM
PG
SERVICE
OF
DESCRIPTION
Research
regarding
111413
JM
Conference
112213
JM
Meet
120213
JM
DIz
OR
12
BILLED
120613
121013
BRO
with
Meeting
JM
Telephone
121113
JM
Conference
121713
JM
Review
121813
JM
Review
121913
JM
Finalize
122413
with
cocounsel
Board
Lee Ann
Lake
conference
with
call
pleadings
RESPONSIBLE
n0
BILLING
BILL
team=
and
with
Potter
team
and
no
follow
conference
telephone
drafts
draft
emails
Sheilas
Respond
JM
Emails regarding
10314
JM
Strategy
call
response
to
to
tile
Complaint and
OM
No
JM
Matter
DATE
SUiMARZE
Statement
TEXT TK
CostsY
TimekeeperN
ExpensesN
ActivityN
BudgetN
ME
RATE
80
35000
28000
VALUE
30
35000
10500
100
35000
33000
100
35000
35000
250
35000
5750
30
35000
10500
140
35000
49000
370
35000
129500
20
35000
42000
480
35000
168000
service
with
and
counsel
Summary
extensions
70
35000
245G0
40
35000
14000
regarding
100
35000
35000
and
Judgement
calendaring
2
Review
to
responses
Motion
20
to
330000
Consolidate
10814
0M
10914
JM
11014
11414
JM
PJ
Process
11514
JM
Review
Review
new case
Review
Summary
and
for
prepare
hearing
briefs
Judgement
other
in
3000
87500
200
35000
70000
80
cases
conference
Telephone
documents
Lakes
brief and
35000
28000
Court
1601
7000
11230
other
150
35000
552530
13
35000
45500
cocounsel
with
filed
with
the
briefs
in
cases
JM
ON
JM
Review
with
conference
Telephone
email with
and
Lake
and
reply
Motion
on
cocounsel
Leanne
consolidation
Court hearing
reeling with
counsel
consolidae
to
before
follow
80
35000
350
3500
1225
28000
20
7000
14
up
after
PJ
314
documents
Prepare
Motion
for
argument
oral
on
Consolidate
to
conference
Telephone
with
Lake
21
cccounse
JM
GM
call
Conference
1
coordnation
JM
and
counsel
with
follow
Lake
up
regarding
70
350
24
70
35000
241
other
cases
Coordinate
regarding
with
Conference
Telephone
marriage
13014
TYPE
RCAP
JM
ATTORNEY
GROUP
FGRNAT
cocounsel
10214
12414
12714
ATTORNEY
30
DATE
NP
SERVICES
call
Conference
JM
12314
0588E
DATE
CHARGE
organizational
with
call
with
12074
12214
17
40585
standing
11714
NUMBER
00
DEDUCTIBLE
DATE
BOX
CONTACT
RECEIVABLE
FUNDS
KEVIN
PG
FEE
ACCOUNTS
UNAPPLIED
BATCH
COSTS
RETAINER
UNAPPLIED
C2
ONLY
with
ng
Lake
E0
and
Summary
Fudgement
350
TASK
ACT
HOLD
TK
TIME
BILL
AMOUNT
TR6030
52014
4MS
l52116
000
ACLU
R A
PAGE
PRINT
SERVICES
FOR
10073
62011
THROUGH
BATCH
ONLY
NUMBER
17
OREGON
OF
Rummell
et
al
Civil
Matter
Rights
DATE
TK
PG
OF
DESCRIPTION
NP
SERVICES
TIME
RATE
VALUE
Motions
13114
JM
Cocounsel
21114
JM
Review
calls
call
edit
brief
meeting with
regarding
States
Multiple
40
35000
14005
300
35000
122500
Potter and
position
21314
JM
Final review
of
brief
21714
JM
Final review
of
brief
21914
22014
JM
JM
22IJ14
JM
TV
22814
31014
3M
Scheduling
JM
Respond
offices
for
Respond
to
Press
telephone
over
go
to
PC
35000
17500
35000
112000
30
35000
10i01
80
35000
28000
50
35000
17500
40
35000
14000
30
35000
10500
40
35000
14000
40
35000
14000
100
35000
3500
80
35000
28010
120
35000
2000
x10
7000
700
230
35000
80500
200
35000
70000
1500
35000
52500
350
35000
122500
280
3500
98000
300
35000
00
600
35000
210000
assist
media
inquiry
responses
interview
to
50
320
call
Lakes
email
Nevada
regarding
case
32114
JM
32714
40114
JM
Respond
JM
Review
40214
JM
Telephone
conference
regarding
media
report
Telephone
Review
JM
communications
regarding
amicus
Johnson
41714
decision
Michigan
briefs
with
call
conference
oral
with
Prepare
41814
JM
Prep
42014
JM
Continued
42114
JM
Coordination
with
intervention
response
42214
JM
oral
supplemental
Draft
with
2
argument
authorities
oral argument
for
argument
for
with
draft
argument
prep
standard
to
counsel
Pi
for
team
argument
for oral
documents
Ann
Lee
Email to
plan
regarding
Conference
plan
cocounsel
research
practice
in
stay
regarding
Cir confer
9th
Ann
Lea
Conference
ca1
ta
ma
2deppOs4Rgg
r
rgmertarirTrarrere`
ceirnse3
42314
JM
Moot
Hearing
arguments
on
2 hours
arrive
JM
and
Motion
travel
early
press
conference
call
Followup
prep
of
Summary
over
to
courthouse
and
conference
with
judgement
012
seating
for
followup
supporters
42414
esptlset
rce
donors
and
2 hrs
from argument
regarding
5130
Sevcik
43014
50114
061
TM
Draft
Review
response
and
to
recusal
motion
to
120
35000
60
35000
NO
50214
JM
50514
50614
JM
51414
51614
JM
JS
Rev ise
rcula
xeSp931
c`
nd
en
fnr
250
i0
140
35
35
TASK
ACT
HOLD
TIME
BILL
AMOUNT
52014
TR6030
PAGE
PRINT
152126
8648
10073
ACLU OF
000
TK
THROUGH
BATCH
661201114
at
al
Civil
PG
DESCRIPTION
JM
Rev4Berespons
51914
JM
Respond
to
Pi
Process
court
52714
52914
JM
53014
53114
JM
Rsuiew
JM
Raa
NP
OF SERVICES
TIME
RATE
80
3500
40
35000
140
20
7000
news
rulings
r0
JM
se
t3`
Bt1
Co rt
TIME
JM
Jennifer Middleton
PJ
Pattie Jenkins
HOLD
EW1
TK
4300
420
120
35000
00
VALUE
0E
2000
BILL
8860
35000
3101000
310
7000
21700
AMOUNT
1O
kITT
`tl
CODE
43014
53114
CONTROL
Long
distance
charges
108
Long
distance
charges
108
Long
distance
charges
108
Long
distance
charges
114
Postage
TOTAL
COSTS
TOTAL
FEES AND
BILL
AS NOTED
BILL
HOLD
THE
FROM
BILL
COSTS
ONLY
BILL
THRU
ON
tk
UNITS
AMOUNT
HOLD
BILL
AMOUNT
170v
2500
129003
x260
EXPENSES
ACCOUNT
1
244
45
3347148
COSTS
APPLY
TO
FOR
RETAINER
BILL
OF
BILL
OF
COSTS
+ivL
tt
vs
Dj0t1itj
tj
E S
48
SUSPEND
DESCRIPTION
SEQ
108
BILL
3122700
AMOUNT
26
00
72Lt
BILL
00
35001
9170
TOTAL
TIME
1400
40
RATE
ACT
800
350
Baef
2t
3505
ASK
VALUE
20
TIMEKEEPER
DATE
17
Matter
Rights
51714
13114
22814
NUMBER
OREGON
Rummell
DATE
SERVICES
FOR
ONLY
RETAINER
OF
BILL
FEES
APPLY
TRUST
OF
COMBINE WITH
NO
CHARGE
Time Spent by Perkins Coie LLP on
Rummell
Kitzhaber
Work
Work
Date
12 22013
Timekeeper
Holm
Kristina
Name
Hours
1.30
Narrative
Telephone
conference
regarding
and
Johnson
complaint in
12 42013
Holm
Kristina
0.70
with internal
case strategy conference
Isaak discussing
and external team

with
K Diaz T
case strategy review
Geiger
Email communication regarding
call
review amended
brief
12 52013
Holm
Kristina
0.80
Telephone
conference
in preparation for meeting
conference
with
with
Perriguey
1212 2013
Isaak
Misha
0.50
Telephone
conference
1213 2013
Isaak
Misha
0.60
Exchange
state's
1216 2013
Isaak
Misha
1217 2013
Holm
Kristina
with
client
regarding
Johnson regarding
emails with
litigation
litigation
same
team and
regarding
client
answer
5.00
Research
1.00
Telephone
and
draft
complaint
conference
with
team regarding
draft
complaint
and case strategy
1217 2013
Isaak
Misha
3.30
Telephone
conference
complaint
revise
client
regarding
and
with Litigation
edit
same
complaint
send
client
team regarding
exchange emails with
email regarding
privilege
1217 2013
Johnson Thomas
1218 2013
Isaak
Misha
2.30
Review
6.50
Conference
and
caselaw
Johnson Thomas
2.30
Review
Isaak
Misha
4.80
Finalize
client
regarding adverse parties review
exchange
and
complaint
regarding
1219 2013
client
emails with
litigation
related
caselaw conversations
strategy
complaint
regarding
exchange emails with
same
field
legal
team and
inquiries regarding
communications surrounding lawsuit research and
1219 2013
Richards Gabrielle
1220 2013
Isaak
Misha
Motion
to
1.10
Review
and
1.90
Finalize
motion to consolidate telephone
Middleton
edit
complaint
and J Frazzini regarding
1220 2013
Johnson Thomas
1.70
Review
complaint
1223 2013
Johnson Thomas
0.80
Review
caselaw
1224 2013
Isaak
0.30
Exchange
process
86959 0002 LEGAL122490082.1
draft
Consolidate
county exchange
Misha
team
same
regarding
1218 2013
with
complaint
edit
emails with legal
emails with
co counsel
conference
litigation
with
with
team and client
regarding service
of
Work
Work
Date
1226 2013
Timekeeper
Isaak
Name
Misha
Hours
2.10
Narrative
cocounsel
nonmembership
cocounsel
Coordinate
service
research standing
Isaak
Misha
1.80
same
Communicate with
client
team
litigation
counsel and
opposing
regarding service
response
with
of
and exchange emails with
organization
regarding
122014
and correspond
of defendants
same
regarding
and communication from
and
L Perriguey
State's
regarding
consolidation
132014
Isaak
Misha
1.70
Telephone
conference
with
motions to consolidate
with
opposing
counsel
and
162014
Isaak
Misha
0.30
summary judgment confer
regarding
review submission of Geiger
motion
Isaak
Misha
0.60
Isaak
Misha
0.80
Telephone
conference
Telephone
conference
affidavits
email
Review
with
M Roche
182014
1 10 2014
Johnson Thomas
Isaak
Misha
with
regarding
parties
J Carson
Khanna and
regarding
witness
Spear regarding
case
State response
to client telephone
client
in opposition to
consolidate
to
assistance in
182014
plaintiffs
communications with opposing
172014
team regarding
litigation
for
motion and transmit
to consolidate
conference
with
Usui
regarding
communication
1.20
Review
0.80
Telephone
conference
in support
of
opposition papers to
telephone
amendment
regarding
litigation
conference
to
team regarding reply
and summary judgment
0.5
briefing
with
complaint
with
opposing
counsel
and briefing schedule
0.3
1 10 2014
Johnson Thomas
1 14 2014
Isaak
Misha
0.70
Team
2.40
Telephone
call
Johnson Thomas
1 15 2014
Isaak
Misha
conference
Isaak
Misha
client
regarding various
concerns
1.30
Review
0.40
Exchange
1.10
with
issues revise
complaint to
accommodate
litigation
state
team
same
draft
judgment
1 16 2014
case
litigation
regarding
1 14 2014
to discuss
amendment
emails with
to
complaint
litigation
team regarding
summary
filing
Exchange
emails
regarding
amendment
and telephone
to
conference
complaint
with
further
revise
Potter
amended
complaint
1 16 2014
Johnson Thomas
1 17 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.20
Case strategy discussions
4.60
Telephone
revise
conference
reply in support
co counsel
2
86959 0002 LEGAL122490082.1
with
co plaintiff
counsel further
amended complaint and circulate to

of
Potter
draft
and circulate to
Work
Work
Date
1 18 2014
Timekeeper
Holm
Kristina
Name
Hours
1.00
Narrative
Review
and revise reply on motion to consolidate email
communication with team regarding same
1 20 2014
Isaak
Misha
2.20
Revise
and
finalize
reply in support
file
of
motion
to
consolidate
1 21 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.70
Telephone
conference
with
regarding consolidation
client
concerns
hearing scheduling
and other matters review
new Ninth Circuit authority
1 21 2014
Johnson Thomas
1 22 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.20
Prepare
8.20
Prepare
for
for
motion
ruling
1 22 2014
Johnson Thomas
6.80
motion hearing
to and participate in oral argument
travel
consolidate
to
and
finalize
counsel
regarding
Prepare
for oral
telephone
file
1 23 2014
Christensen
Nathan
2.00
with
amended complaint
on
client
on
email opposing
same
argument
travel
to
Eugene for oral
from Eugene conference
argument return to Portland

with
conference
call
co counsel
and brainstorm
Research
motion
for
for
summary
judgment
1 23 2014
Isaak
Misha
4.40
Begin to
with
draft
motion
Christensen
summary judgment
for
conference
regarding organization of brief
coplaintiff
communicate
with
team and
litigation
about
client
counsel
1 24 2014
Christensen
Nathan
1.90
Research for
meeting
1 24 2014
Isaak
Misha
5.50
to outline
team
conferences
brief
1 26 2014
Christensen
1 27 2014
Isaak
1 28 2014
Isaak
Nathan
Misha
Misha
Team
1.40
Research for
4.50
Draft
3.40
1 30 2014
Christensen
1 30 2014
Isaak
Misha
Nathan
Misha
same sex
summary judgment moving
brief
strategy
motion
for
summary judgment
with
opposing
counsel
Draft
regarding
summary judgment
with
deadlines
brief telephone
conference
Nicola regarding
news
with
articles
record
Draft
3.50
Research
2.50
Conference
and discuss motion for summary judgment

with
with
Johnson regarding
co plaintiff
counsel
preparation
participate
in
for
meeting
summary judgment brief
co counsel
co counsel
Meet with
3
86959 0002 LEGAL122490082.1
organization of
in other
motion for summary judgment correspond
2.10
1.80
briefs filed
team regarding same exchange emails with
draft
Johnson Thomas
communication with
Christensen regarding
to discuss
call
meeting
1 30 2014
motion
litigation
for
Isaak
draft
client conference
1 29 2014
internal
of
and summary judgment briefing telephone
and review
cases
0.50
regarding
call
with
collect
marriage
Johnson Thomas
in support
coplaintiff
Litigation
counsel
1 24 2014
memorandum
to
discuss
case correspondence
with
Work
Work
Date
Timekeeper
1 31 2014
Christensen
1 31 2014
Isaak
Name
Nathan
Misha
Hours
Narrative
3.20
Research
3.20
Research
and discuss motion for summary judgment
draft
Rule 60 issue and email
same
regarding
conference
with
co plaintiff
counsel
summary judgment motion telephone
draft
team regarding
litigation
briefing strategy
and communication with state
212014
Christensen
212014
Isaak
222014
Christensen
222014
Isaak
232014
Christensen
232014
Isaak
Nathan
Misha
Nathan
Misha
Nathan
Misha
1.60
Research
6.50
Draft
5.00
Research
2.30
Draft
0.80
Discuss
2.20
Draft
and
draft
summary judgment
and
draft
brief
summary judgment
brief
and review motion
Summary Judgment
summary judgment
for
brief telephone
conference
with
Feldman regarding amicus brief
242014
Christensen
Nathan
1.80
Review
and
revise
252014
Christensen
Nathan
1.20
Review
and
redline
motion
for
summary judgment
memorandum
in support
summary
of
judgment
252014
Isaak
262014
Christensen
Misha
Nathan
1.50
Draft
summary judgment
1.10
Draft
and review memorandum in support
brief
summary
of
judgment
262014
Isaak
Misha
1.90
and
Revise
litigation
262014
Johnson Thomas
272014
Holm
Kristina
summary judgment
edit
2.20
Review
related
1.50
Review
draft
caselaw
motion for summary judgment email
communication with
272014
Isaak
Misha
5.20
Exchange
emails with
same
Isaak regarding
litigation
revisions to brief especially

draft
brief transmit to
team with cover note
group regarding proposed
regarding
of
with
Johnson regarding same exchange emails with

counsel
revise
and opposing
same
email
counsel
client
case
SmithKline
time conference
same
regarding
regarding timing
co plaintiff
further
and expedited
review respond to email inquiry of amicus party counsel

revise
2 10 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.40
and
edit
Telephone
send
for
conference
comments
to
with
Usui
summary judgment
file
K Diaz
regarding
regarding
same
affidavits
revise
exchange emails with opposing
counsel
motion
of
time
regarding extension
on answer
2 10 2014
Johnson Thomas
2 11 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.50
3.30
Review
Telephone
State
expedited
2 11 2014
Johnson Thomas
2.30
Review
4
86959 0002 LEGAL122490082.1
conference
second telephone
review
draft
of
with
clients
conference
further edit
regarding
with
meeting with
clients
regarding
summary judgment
brief
Work
Work
Date
2 12 2014
Timekeeper
Isaak
Name
Misha
Hours
6.20
Narrative
summary judgment
Revise
comments
with
pursuant
brief
incorporate declarations
proposed declarants
to
attorney
telephone
and coordinate
team
conference
drafting of
declarations
2 12 2014
Johnson Thomas
2 13 2014
Christensen
Nathan
2.10
Review
and
edit
3.10
Review
and
redline
memorandum
in support
of
motion
for
summary judgment
2 13 2014
Isaak
Misha
6.20
Conference
status
with opposing
counsel
regarding
litigation
and conferral further revise summary judgment
brief telephone
conference
with
summary judgment exchange

regarding
case transmit
SmithKline
motion for
regarding
client
emails with
to
brief
team
litigation
co plaintiff's
counsel exchange emails with county counsel regarding

conferral
2 13 2014
Johnson Thomas
2 14 2014
Isaak
Misha
4.30
Meet with lawyers
5.60
Draft declarations
with county
for
M Roche
of
counsel
State review
and
edit
marriage brief
and J Frazzini conference
regarding conferral
further
revise
summary judgment brief respond to inquiries of

regarding
2 14 2014
Johnson Thomas
2 15 2014
Isaak
Misha
0.90
Review
1.50
Incorporate
draft
judgment
2 17 2014
Isaak
Misha
7.20
Further revise
2 18 2014
Christensen
Nathan
Isaak
Misha
summary judgment
and exhibits
Review
0.40
Internal discussions
3.60
by proofreader to summary
brief emails with
team regarding comments
1.30
for
revision compile
for
filing
conferences
with
status
brief
support
2 18 2014
revisions
motion
and J Middleton regarding
Johnson
summary judgment
suggested
declarations
Johnson Thomas
of
brief
litigation
2 17 2014
S Berman
pleadings
of
Finalize
memorandum
regarding finalizing
in
brief
and declarations
same exchange
and coordinate
emails with opposing
filing
counsel
and
of
litigation
team regarding standing
2 18 2014
Johnson Thomas
2 19 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.90
Review
0.50
Telephone
litigation
2 20 2014
Isaak
Misha
0.80
conference
Communicate with
Attorney General
2 20 2014
Johnson Thomas
2 21 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.40
Call with
1.30
Exchange
clients
2 21 2014
Johnson Thomas
1.50
Telephone
5
86959 0002 LEGAL122490082.1
to
client
litigation
team and
client
regarding
announcement
to discuss issues
emails with
parties telephone
related
with
team regarding Attorney General announcement
litigation
conference
summary judgment
conferences
relating
to
case
team regarding
with
client
filing
relating to
and
case
amicus
regarding issues
AG
announcement
Work
Work
Date
2 27 2014
Timekeeper
Isaak
Name
Misha
Hours
0.50
Narrative
coplaintiff
and exchange
Discuss
from
emails regarding proposal
counsel
2 27 2014
Johnson Thomas
2 28 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.80
Review
0.40
Telephone
co counsel
of
brief
conference
with
Singer
regarding
amicus
brief
332014
Isaak
Misha
2.20
co plaintiffs summary judgment brief conference

co plaintiffs counsel regarding scheduling respond to
Review
with
client
342014
Isaak
Misha
0.70
email inquiries
Respond to email inquiry of

communicate
motion
352014
3 10 2014
Johnson Thomas
Isaak
Misha
Isaak
Misha
Meet with
co counsel
review briefs
0.80
Exchange
emails with
litigation
1.60
argument
Conferences
Misha
1.00
Johnson Thomas
3 18 2014
Isaak
Misha
with
team regarding
Nevada
and amicus briefs

and
Johnson
S Potter
regarding
team
litigation
with
litigation
team and
client
regarding
from court
DOJ
0.80
Call to
1.20
Conference
attorneys
with
on
conference
same
schedule
same
Conference
inquiry
3 17 2014
and
County response to
from court exchange emails with
regarding
Isaak
review
summary judgment
for
inquiry
3 14 2014
Berman
regarding
2.30
oral
3 13 2014
co counsel
with
review
oral
Johnson regarding
argument
State's
attorney
and update
response
to
telephone
regarding
clients
summary judgment
motion
3 19 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.60
Read
State defendants
counsel
3 20 2014
Isaak
Misha
0.30
regarding
Telephone
response brief confer
with
all
response to Court's inquiry
conference
with
Berman regarding
litigation
matters
3 21 2014
Isaak
Misha
0.80
Read
with
3 24 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.10
Michigan marriage decision telephone
Exchange
emails with
coordination
3 31 2014
Isaak
Misha
0.40
regarding
Potter
Review
with
conference
same
litigation
team regarding
co plaintiffs
litigation
team regarding
Harris stay decision
412014
Isaak
Misha
1.80
Review
amicus briefs telephone conference
regarding
case
status
with
and communication with
client
co plaintiff
counsel
462014
Isaak
Misha
0.50
Research
status
of
Nevada appeal and update
litigation
team regarding same
492014
Johnson Thomas
2.30
Review
pleadings
argument
6
86959 0002 LEGAL122490082.1
and opinions for guidance for oral
Work
Work
Date
4 11 2014
Timekeeper
Isaak
Name
Misha
Hours
0.70
Narrative
Telephone
conference
with
litigation
team regarding oral
argument
4 14 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.00
Conferences
with
4 14 2014
Johnson Thomas
5.30
Prepare
4 15 2014
Johnson Thomas
8.50
Travel
Eugene
to
co counsel
prepare for
purposes
for
and
client
regarding
prepare for
oral
argument
argument
oral
for
Johnson
co counsel
collaboration with
oral
arguments meet with
mock arguments
of
with
call
client
4 16 2014
Johnson Thomas
12.50
Prepare
4 17 2014
Isaak
Misha
3.00
argument attend oral argument drive back
for oral
and participation in conference
to Portland
Conference
argument
with
draft
counsel
all
in case to discuss
and revise supplemental
pleading research question
4 17 2014
Johnson Thomas
4 18 2014
Isaak
Misha
1.90
Review
2.90
Research
and
and
authorities
with
and exchange
plan hearing
J Middleton
regarding
4 19 2014
Isaak
Misha
2.50
Prepare
4 21 2014
Isaak
Misha
5.60
Travel
Misha
8.70
Travel
to
motion
4 23 2014
Isaak
Misha
12.00
Prepare
regarding
4 23 2014
Johnson Thomas
4 24 2014
Isaak
Misha
oral
4 25 2014
582014
Johnson Thomas
Isaak
Misha
Eugene
for
4.5
conference
issues
all
draft
counsel
2.2
and
for
travel
Review
0.50
Conferences
prepare
prepare for oral
participate
8.2
oral
argument
argument on
6.5
in oral
argument on motion
debrief hearing
from Eugene
for
1.1
summary judgment
with
client
for
1.5
2.3
amicus briefs
with
Holm
regarding
opposition
to
motion
summary judgment
1.50
Review
document
0.60
Telephone
filing
with Sheila
0.4
0.2
authorities
update regarding
for
conference
of supplemental
86959 0002 LEGAL122490082.1
argument
argument
and from Eugene
2.30
for
T Johnson
with
same
summary judgment
return
team regarding
emails with legal
logistics
official
of supplemental
for oral
to
revise notice
on summary judgment motion

Isaak
and
capacity
team regarding
email to legal
draft
justiciability
email to court
4 22 2014
official
amicus briefs
capacity
same
on
oral
authorities
S Kreimer regarding same
and email
justiciability
calls
same
Potter
email
regarding
litigation
notice
team with
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Sent
6 25 2014 4 09 55
Subject
Automatic
am out
have
of
the
an urgent
Trial Counsel
matter
will
office
matter
Steve
when
Sheila
Potter
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
will
for the
Lippold
please contact
respond
and
reply
CONFIDENTIAL
check
Division
by calling
return
Justice
Thank
you
AND
PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT

please contact
503
my legal assistant
Trial Counsel
of
Coie
PM
947
Mary
4700
If
through
COMMUNICATION
Friday
June
27
If
executive
assistant
Joan
Green
you have
an urgent
case
related
Hamilton by calling
971
673
1880
you
or Chief
Otherwise
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Johnson
Sent
6 30 2014 4 10 50
Coie
R Jr Perkins Coie
PM
RE CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED
Subject
Thomas

Hi Sheila
you were out of the office
realize
tomorrow
SETTLEMENT
any chance you
last
kdiaz
SETTLEMENT
aclu or org
kdiaz
aclur oorg
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
week and may not have had a
have a response on settlement
ll
Kevin Diaz
of
fees by then
or
chance
to
look at this
shouldwe plan to
file
Our fee
for
petition
another
is
due
extension
of
time
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Isaak
Sent
Misha
Wednesday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Sheila
Perkins
June 25
sheila
Thomas R
Coie
2014 4 10 PM
potter
Jr
doj state or us
Perkins
Coie
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED SETTLEMENT
Subject
SETTLEMENT
aclu or
org
kdiaz
aclu or
org
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
Sheila
Tom
believe
just
matters relating to
Perkins
Hours
Rate
Total
left
NOM
Attached
The
totals

Rummell attorneys
subtracting
time spent on
are as follows
Coie attorneys
301 6
See below
96 485
Jennifer
Middleton
Hours
72 4
Rate
350
Total
25 340
Kevin
Diaz
Hours
74
Rate
400
Total
29 600
Rose Saxe
Hours
40
Rate
325
Total
13 000
Amanda Goad
Hours
24 1
Rate
300
Total
7 230
Grand
total
Regarding
171 655
Perkins
Coie s time
although
Tom and
did

s
on this case
we
received
assistance
from several
Richards
Tom
this
s intervention
compared
Johnson at
with
for this
time
Finally
this
to
280
at
Kristina
Holm
at
file
we
a fee
email and
the attorney
information or
was a necessary
the time
we
if
accounting
its

subject
projects
425 Misha Isaak
340
295
and Gabby
230
at
As mentioned
NOM
on various
associates
other
case are
for this
part of
litigating
would have spent

petition
client
we do
we
the merits against
NOM
and
NOM
However
intervention
s
resulted
as an

not waive
and work product
communications
case to conclusion
in
an
intervenor
overall cost
we
will
since defeating
savings
likely
when
seek to recover
in court
attachments
Also
litigating
this

privileges
If
the attached
settlement
our right
to
on fees
protect
billingstatements
and
information
is
therefore
subject
to
and communications
inadvertently
disclose
protected

communications
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
FAX 503 346 2086

NOTICE
advise
This communication
the sender
contents
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
To
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
H
Perkins Coie
PM
RE CONFIDENTIAL AND
Sent
6 30 2014 4 13 01
Subject
Boy
if
the
same
you could
take
a short
for our response
definitely hammered out

From
Isaak
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Misha
June
Sheila
to
extension
Lake
and
done
Perkins
Coie
30
2014
and
I
SETTLEMENT
PRIVILEGED
to
that
let
ll
COMMUNICATION
s say a week
give
us enough
from Friday
time to
have
and
we
ll
ask for
something
bet
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
4 11 PM
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Kevin
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org
kdiaz
aclu
or org
Subject
RE
CONFIDENTIAL
AND
CONFIDENTIAL
AND
Hi Sheila
realize you were
look
at
this
settlement
PRIVILEGED
Our fee
of
fees
PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT
out
petition
by then
is
of
SETTLEMENT
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
the
due
office
last week
tomorrow
or should we
plan
and
any chance
to
file
may not
you ll
for another
have
have
had
a chance
a response
extension
of
to
on
time
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Isaak
Sent
Wednesday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
or org
Misha
Sheila
Thomas
25
aclu
AND
Coie
2014
sheila
Jr
4 10 PM
potter
AND
doj state
Perkins
or org mailto
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
LLP
Perkins
June
kdiaz
Subject
Coie
2086
kdiaz
PRIVILEGED
PRIVILEGED
Coie
or us mailto
Kevin
aclu
sheila
kdiaz
potter
aclu
doj state
or org mailto
or us
kdiaz
aclu
or org
SETTLEMENT
SETTLEMENT
Diaz
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
Sheila
I
believe
Tom
attorneys
totals
are as follows
Perkins
Hours
Coie
301
Rate
See
Total
attorneys
6
below
96 485
Jennifer
Middleton
Hours
72 4
Rate
350
Total
25 340
Kevin
Diaz
Hours
74
Rate
400
Total
Rose
just left
subtracting
29 600
Saxe
Hours
40
Rate
325
Total
13 000
Amanda
Goad
Hours
24 1
you a voicemail
time spent
about
on matters
this
Attached
relating
to
NOM
are timesheets
s motion to
for the
intervene
Rummell
The
Rate
300
Total
7 230
total
Grand
Regarding
Johnson
655
Perkins
this case
drafting
171
we
Coie
portions
at
s time
received
425
Gabby Richards
of
the
this accounting
intervention
However
this case
to
would
to
recover
spent
Finally
this email
on fees
and
and
and
its
therefore
expressly preserve
attorney
client
disclose
protected
information
did the
other
brief
Kristina
and
not
defeating
resulted
litigating
for this time if
is
280
does
since
conclusion
have
at
and
vast
majority of
associates
Perkins
Holm at
Coie
340
the
on various
s rates
Nathan
firm s work
projects
such
for this case
Christensen
on
as
are
Tom
295
and
at
230
As mentioned
we
Tom
from several
summary judgment
Misha Isaak
at
although
assistance
we
the
include
NOM
in an overall cost
merits against
file
a fee
attachments
subject
to
are being
the
on tasks
work
privileges
If
relating
a necessary
savings
when
to
NOM
part
of
compared
as an intervenor
sent
information
the
or communications
was
we
s
litigating
with the
will
likely
time
seek
in court
settlement
protect
product
NOM
petition
our right to
information
time spent
s intervention
we
in the
privilege
and
hope
of
Also
coming to
we
communications
attached
reserve
billing
the
do not
subject
statements
right to
claw
a settlement
waive
to
and
the
inadvertently
back
such
or communications
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
503
97209
727
346
misaak
NOTICE
This
and
perkinscoie
communication
received
message
4128
2086
2086
E MAIL
have
LLP
Floor
Portland
FAX
Coie
Street
it
in error
any attachments
com mailto
may contain
misaak
privileged
please advise
without
perkinscoie
the
copying
com
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
6 30 2014 4 28 18
PM
RE CONFIDENTIAL AND
Subject
You got
Coie
it
PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT
COMMUNICATION
request two more weeks to be safe
ll
Misha
Misha Isaak
From
Potter
Sent
To
Sheila
Monday
Isaak
mailto sheila
June 30
Misha
doj state or us
potter
2014 4 13 PM
Perkins
Coie
RE CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED SETTLEMENT
Subject
Boy
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
you could take a short extension to
if
response to Lake
and
that
ll
let
COMMUNICATION
s say a
week from
Friday
and
give us enough time to have something denitely
we
ask for the same for our

ll
hammered out and done
bet
From
Isaak
Sent
Misha
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Perkins
June 30
Sheila
Coie
mailto
misaak
Thomas R
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
RE CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED SETTLEMENT
Subject

Hi Sheila
SETTLEMENT
you were out of the office
realize
tomorrow
com
perkinscoie
2014 4 11 PM
any chance you
ll
last
aclu
org
or
kdiaz
aclu or
org
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
week and may not have had a
have a response on settlement
of
fees by then
or
chance
to
look at this
shouldwe plan to
file
Our fee
for
petition
another
is
due
extension
of
time
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
Perkins Coie LLP
503 727 2086
PHONE
From
Isaak
Sent
Misha
Wednesday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
Subject
Sheila
Perkins
June 25
Coie
2014 4 10 PM
sheila potter
Thomas R
Jr
doj state or us
Perkins
Coie
Kevin Diaz
kdiaz
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED SETTLEMENT
SETTLEMENT
aclu
or
org
kdiaz
aclu or
org
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
Sheila
believe
Tom
just
matters relating to
Perkins
Hours
Rate
Total
left
Coie attorneys
301 6
See below
96 485
NOM
Attached
The
totals

Rummell attorneys
are as follows
subtracting
time spent on
Jennifer
Middleton
Hours
72 4
Rate
350
Total
25 340
Kevin
Diaz
Hours
74
Rate
400
Total
29 600
Rose Saxe
Hours
40
Rate
325
Total
13 000
Amanda Goad
Hours
24 1
Rate
300
Total
7 230
Grand
171 655
total
Regarding
Perkins
from several
Richards
this
s intervention
compared
Johnson at
time
Finally
this
we
if
accounting
file
we
a fee
email and
its

to
Tom and
did
we

s
on this case
received
projects
425 Misha Isaak
280
at
Kristina
Holm
at
was a necessary
the time
with
for this
subject
although
on various
340
assistance
295
and Gabby
230
at
As mentioned
NOM
Tom
case are
for this
Coie s time
associates
other
the attorney
petition
client
we do
NOM
the merits against
NOM
and
However
intervention
s
resulted
as an

not waive
and work product
we
litigating
case to conclusion
in
an
intervenor
overall cost
we
will
since defeating
savings
likely
when
seek to recover
in court
attachments
Also
this
litigating
would have spent
communications
information or
part of

privileges
If
settlement
our right
the attached
to
on fees
protect
billingstatements
and
information
is
therefore
subject
to
and communications
inadvertently
disclose
protected

communications
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
FAX 503 346 2086

NOTICE
advise
This communication
contents
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
the sender
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
Thank you
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
NOTICE
advise
This communication
the sender
contents
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Sent
6 30 2014 5 01 19
Coie
PM
Re CONFIDENTIAL AND
Subject
Awesome
SETTLEMENT
PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION
thanks
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jun 30
misaak
You
2014
of
at
4 28 PM
perkinscoie
got
it
ll
Justice
Isaak
com mailto
request
Misha
misaak
two more
Perkins
perkinscoie
weeks
to
Coie
com
wrote
be safe
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Potter
Sheila
Sent
Monday
June
To
Isaak
Subject
Misha
RE
Boy
if
the
same
Coie
mailto
30
2014
Perkins
CONFIDENTIAL
you could
take

Isaak
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
or org
Misha
June
Sheila
Subject
RE
AND
to
Perkins
Coie
2014
aclu
Jr
AND
PRIVILEGED
Our fee
of
to
that
let
ll
s say a week
give
us enough
from Friday
time to
have
and
we
ll
ask for
something
bet
mailto
Perkins
or org mailto
realize you were
settlement
and
COMMUNICATION
misaak
perkinscoie
com
4 11 PM
Hi Sheila
or us
CONFIDENTIAL
this
doj state
SETTLEMENT
extension
done
AND
at
PRIVILEGED
Lake
CONFIDENTIAL
look
potter
Coie
and
30
Thomas
kdiaz
sheila
4 13 PM
a short
for our response
From
LLP
2086
fees
SETTLEMENT
out
is
of
Kevin
aclu
PRIVILEGED
petition
by then
Coie
kdiaz
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
SETTLEMENT
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
the
due
office
last week
tomorrow
or should we
plan
and
any chance
to
file
may not
you ll
for another
have
have
had
a chance
a response
extension
of
to
on
time
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Isaak
Sent
Wednesday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
or org
Misha
Sheila
Thomas
25
aclu
AND
Coie
2014
sheila
Jr
4 10 PM
potter
AND
doj state
Perkins
or org mailto
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
LLP
Perkins
June
kdiaz
Subject
Coie
2086
kdiaz
PRIVILEGED
PRIVILEGED
Coie
or us mailto
Kevin
aclu
sheila
kdiaz
potter
aclu
doj state
or org mailto
or us
kdiaz
aclu
or org
SETTLEMENT
SETTLEMENT
Diaz
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
Sheila
I
believe
attorneys
totals
Tom
just left
subtracting
are as follows
you a voicemail
time spent
about
on matters
this
Attached
relating
to
NOM
are timesheets
s motion to
for the
intervene
Rummell
The
Perkins
Hours
Coie
301
Rate
See
Total
below
96 485
Jennifer
Middleton
Hours
72 4
Rate
350
Total
25 340
Kevin
Diaz
Hours
74
Rate
400
Total
Rose
attorneys
29 600
Saxe
Hours
40
Rate
325
Total
13 000
Amanda
Goad
Hours
24 1
Rate
300
Total
7 230
total
Grand
Regarding
Johnson
655
Perkins
this case
drafting
171
we
Coie
portions
at
s time
received
425
Gabby Richards
of
the
this accounting
intervention
However
this case
to
would
to
recover
spent
Finally
this email
on fees
and
and
and
attorney
client
disclose
protected
and
not
resulted
we
its
therefore
expressly preserve
information
did the
other
brief
Kristina
defeating
litigating
for this time if
is
280
does
since
conclusion
have
at
and
vast
majority of
associates
Perkins
Holm at
Coie
340
the
on various
s rates
Nathan
firm s work
projects
such
for this case
Christensen
on
as
are
Tom
295
and
at
230
As mentioned
we
Tom
from several
summary judgment
Misha Isaak
at
although
assistance
the
include
NOM
in an overall cost
merits against
file
a fee
attachments
subject
to
are being
the
on tasks
work
privileges
If
relating
a necessary
savings
when
to
NOM
part
of
compared
as an intervenor
sent
information
the
or communications
was
we
s
litigating
with the
will
time
likely
seek
in court
settlement
protect
product
NOM
petition
our right to
information
time spent
s intervention
we
in the
privilege
and
hope
of
Also
coming to
we
do not
communications
attached
reserve
billing
the
a settlement
waive
subject
to
statements
right to
claw
and
the
inadvertently
back
such
or communications
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
503
97209
727
346
misaak
NOTICE
This
and
perkinscoie
communication
received
message
4128
2086
2086
E MAIL
have
it
in error
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
may contain
without
keep
perkinscoie
privileged
please advise
information
applicable
that
misaak
the
com
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
copying
or disclosing
that
privileged
the
information
and
immediately
contents
Thank
If
you
delete
the
you
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
com mailto
any attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
LLP
Floor
Portland
FAX
Coie
Street
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
is
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
NOTICE
have
This
communication
received
message
and
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
privileged
please advise
without
the
copying
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 1 2014 4 57 34
Subject
THIS IS HILARIOUS
Sheila
H
PM
and requires no attorney fees

http
www
slate
com
blogs outward
2014 07 01 create
your own
gay marriage
ruling
html
From
Potter
To
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
7 3 2014 10 00 13
Subject
Fee
Since
the
I
Rummell
same
Lea
Ann
Lake Perriguey
AM
extension
petition
plaintiffs
extension
d asked
Sheila
have
asked
for our response

for
when
we
for July 15
to
talked
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Potter
of
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
Trial Counsel
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
5000
your fee
Thanks
do you have
petition
It
any objection
to
our asking
d be two business days more
for
than
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
7 3 2014 10 01 54
Subject
RE
We
don
Sheila
Fee
petition
Lake Perriguey
AM
extension
have any objection
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Potter
Sheila
Thursday
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
03 2014 10 00 AM
July
Lake
Perriguey
Fee petition extension
Since Rummell plaintis
have asked
for July 15
extension for our response to your fee petition
when we
do you have any

It
d be two
objection
to our
asking
business days more thanI
for the
asked
same
Lea Ann
for
Thanks
talked
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
7 3 2014 10 06 20
Subject
Re Fee
Let s
work
petition
out using the time
this
Lake James
Sheila
we
AM
extension
need
no objection
full
support
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On
3 2014
Jul
at
Civil
10 00
Justice
AM
Potter Sheila
have asked
sheila
for July 15
when we
potter
doj state or us
do you have any

It
d be two
wrote
objection
to our
asking
for the
asked
same
Lea Ann
for
Thanks
talked
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
7 3 2014 10 38 42
Subject
RE
Thank
you both
From
Lake
Sent
Thursday
Perriguey
To
Potter
Cc
Lea
Ann
Subject
Re
Let
s work
Lake
Law
petition
mailto
July 03
Sheila
AM
extension
lake
2014
law
works
com
10 06 AM
Easton
Fee petition
this out
James H
Works
Fee
extension
using
the
time we
need
no objection
full
support
Perriguey
LLC

Portland
Oregon 97205
T
503
227
1928
503
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
law
Guardian
Jul 3
sheila
works
of
2014
potter
com http
Civil
at
www
d asked
Lea
10 00 AM
doj state
Ann
works
com
Justice
Potter
for
Sheila
or us mailto
Since Rummell plaintiffs

have asked
the same extension for our response
I
law
when
we
sheila
potter
doj state
for July 15
do you have
to your fee petition
It
talked
or us
wrote
any objection to our asking

d be two business days more
for
than
Thanks
Sheila
Sheila
Deputy
H
Potter
Chief Trial Counsel
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
of
Fifth Avenue
971
OR
Suite
673
1880
FAX
under
or otherwise
that
971
673
5000
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
410
97201
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
Justice
information
applicable
you have
law
If
received
reply e mail
keep the contents
from your system
attachments
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
Sent
7 3 2014 11 28 23
Subject
RE
Sevick v Sandoval
just
Sheila
Fee
petition
AM
extension
got set for oral argument in Ninth Circuit
on Sept
in
SF
Lea Ann
From
Sent
To
Cc
Potter
Sheila
Thursday
Lake
July
mailto sheila
potter
doj state or us
03 2014 10 39 AM
Perriguey
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
RE Fee
petition
extension
Thank you both
From
Sent
Lake
Perriguey
Thursday
July
To
Potter
Cc
Lea Ann Easton
Subject
Sheila
Re
mailto lake
com
Fee petition extension
Let s work this out using the time
Lake James
law works
03 2014 10 06 AM
we need
no
objection
full
support
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
97205
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
skype
OTLA
On
law works com
lagojaime
Jul
3 2014
at
10 00
AM
Potter Sheila
have asked
H sheila
for July 15
when we
talked
Thanks
Sheila
Sheila
Potter
Deputy Chief
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
1515
SW
Portland
Phone
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE
potter
do you have any

It
d be two
objection
to our
asking
for the
asked
same
Lea Ann
for
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 4 2014 12 52 06
Subject
Happy 4th
Sheila
H
PM
of July
Hi Sheila
have Michelle
Charlie Hinkle
Burrows and
s
declaration
Phil
about
also have inquiries out to engage
will
is
have to pay
all
Goldsmith
my
rates
in
the wings prepared to
Elden Rosenthal and
Tom
Lake James
Monday
these people for their time preparing
afternoon
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
or Tuesday
additional
d eclarations to supplement
Steenson
the declarations
necessary
Let s talk on
file
and attorney fees
if
you are
available
and
ould prefer not to do that unless
it
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 7 2014 3 40 09
Subject
RE
Will
give
you a call
From
Lake
Sent
Friday
To
on Tuesday
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
Happy 4th
mailto
July 04
Sheila
Happy
2014
PM
of July
afternoon
lake
law
works
com
12 52 PM
4th
of
July
Hi Sheila
I
have
Michelle
declarations
I
also have
will
prefer
Let
s talk
Lake
Law
to
to
1906
SW
503
503
pay all
on Monday
to
these
unless
engage
people
it
afternoon
is
Elden
Madison
227
1928
334
2340
www
law
skype
lagojaime
Rosenthal
Tom
Guardian
of
com http
for their time preparing
or Tuesday
Civil
Justice
www
and
if
law
works
file
additional
and
attorney
fees
Steenson
the
you are available
com
to
my rates
necessary
97205
works
prepared
about
Street
Oregon
wings
s declaration
Perriguey
http
OTLA
Phil Goldsmith in the

Charlie Hinkle
LLC
Portland
T
out
do that
James H
Works
and
supplement
inquiries
have
not
Burrows
to
declarations
and
would
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 7 2014 5 49 22
Subject
Nike gay marriage
Perhaps Phil would like to
Sheila
make
http
www
oregonlive
http
www
law works com
com
H
PM
PAC
a contribution
politics
returns
180K
to Phil
The amount
index ssf 2014 07 nike
saved
Knight
is
company
executives
OregonLive
com
the amount incur red
gay marriage
pac
refunds ht ml incart
more business
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Kevin Diaz
Sent
7 8 2014 1 22 57
Subject
RE CONFIDENTIAL
kdiaz
Coie
aclu or org
kdiaz
aclu or org
AND
SETTLEMENT
PRIVILEGED
be crossed
off
Jr
PerkinsCoie
COMMUNICATION
Hi Sheila
I m just checking
in on the status of this
I don
I will be out of the office Thursday and Friday of this week
can
Thomas
Johnson
PM
t mean to pester you about it

but
so I m just checking
to see if
it
my list
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
Perkins
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Sent
To
Potter
Monday
Isaak
Subject
Sheila H
June 30
Misha
Re
Awesome
mailto sheila
2014 5 01 PM
Perkins
potter
doj state
or us
Coie
CONFIDENTIAL
AND
PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT
COMMUNICATION
thanks
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
Department
of
On Jun 30
2014
at
misaak perkinscoie
You
got
it
ll
Justice
4 28 PM
Isaak
Misha
Perkins Coie
com mailto misaak perkinscoie
com
wrote
request
two more
weeks
to
be safe
Misha
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
Perkins
727
Coie
From
Potter
Sheila
Sent
Monday
June
mailto
30
2014
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
Subject
RE
CONFIDENTIAL
Boy
if
the
same
you could
take

Isaak
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
or org
Misha
June
Sheila
Subject
RE
to
done
Perkins
Coie
2014
aclu
Jr
AND
realize you were
settlement
Thanks
Misha
of
and
I
SETTLEMENT
to
that
let
ll
COMMUNICATION
s say a week
give
us enough
from Friday
time to
have
and
we
ll
ask for
something
bet
mailto
Perkins
or org mailto
Hi Sheila
or us
misaak
perkinscoie
com
CONFIDENTIAL
this
doj state
4 11 PM
AND
at
extension
Lake
CONFIDENTIAL
look
potter
Coie
AND PRIVILEGED
and
30
Thomas
kdiaz
sheila
4 13 PM
a short
for our response
From
LLP
2086
PRIVILEGED
Our fee
fees
by then
PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT
petition
Coie
kdiaz
out
is
of
due
Kevin
aclu
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
SETTLEMENT
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
the
office
tomorrow
or should we
plan
last week
and
any chance
to
file
may not
you ll
for another
have
have
had
a chance
a response
extension
of
on
time
to
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
Perkins
727
From
Isaak
Sent
Wednesday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
or org
Misha
Sheila
25
aclu
4 10 PM
potter
Jr
doj state
Perkins
or org mailto
CONFIDENTIAL
AND
Coie
2014
sheila
Thomas
CONFIDENTIAL
LLP
Perkins
June
kdiaz
Subject
Coie
2086
AND
Coie
kdiaz
PRIVILEGED
PRIVILEGED
or us mailto
Kevin
aclu
sheila
kdiaz
potter
aclu
doj state
or org mailto
or us
kdiaz
aclu
or org
SETTLEMENT
SETTLEMENT
Diaz
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
Sheila
I
believe
Tom
attorneys
totals
Hours
Coie
301
See
Total
Attached
to
NOM
are timesheets
s motion to
for the
Rummell
intervene
The
attorneys
below
Middleton
72 4
Rate
350
Total
25 340
Kevin
Diaz
Hours
74
Rate
400
Total
29 600
Saxe
Hours
40
Rate
325
Total
13 000
Amanda
Goad
Hours
24 1
Rate
300
Total
7 230
total
Regarding
drafting
Johnson
171
655
Perkins
this case
we
Coie
portions
at
s time
received
425
Gabby Richards
of
the
this accounting
However
this case
to
would
to
recover
spent
this email
on fees
and
is
and
attorney
client
disclose
protected
information
and
its
therefore
expressly preserve
and
N W
we
the
did the
vast
majority of
associates
Perkins
Holm at
include
NOM
Coie
340
in an overall cost
a fee
attachments
to
the
are being
the
on various
s rates
Nathan
firm s work
projects
such
for this case
Christensen
on
as
are
Tom
295
and
at
work
privileges
Perkins
Street
Coie
LLP
If
was
relating
a necessary
savings
when
to
part
compared
as an intervenor
sent
information
or communications
on tasks
we
NOM
of
s
litigating
with the
will
likely
time
seek
in court
settlement
protect
product
NOM
petition
our right to
information
time spent
s intervention
merits against
file
subject
or communications
Couch
not
resulted
Misha
Misha Isaak
other
brief
Kristina
defeating
litigating
for this time if
Finally
280
does
since
conclusion
have
at
and
230
intervention
we
Tom
from several
summary judgment
Misha Isaak
at
although
assistance
As mentioned
1120
this
relating
Hours
Grand
about
on matters
96 485
Jennifer
Rose
you a voicemail
time spent
are as follows
Perkins
Rate
just left
subtracting
the
we
in the
privilege
and
hope
of
Also
coming to
we
communications
attached
reserve
billing
the
do not
subject
statements
right to
claw
a settlement
waive
to
and
the
inadvertently
back
such
Tenth
Floor
Portland
PHONE
FAX
OR
503
503
97209
727
346
2086
E MAIL
misaak
NOTICE
This
have
and
perkinscoie
communication
received
message
4128
2086
it
in error
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
NOTICE
have
NOTICE
This
have
and
the
law
If
received
contents
communication
it
in error
any attachments
communication
received
message
the
com
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
copying
or disclosing
that
privileged
the
information
and
immediately
contents
Thank
If
you
delete
the
you
is
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
This
and
information
you have
keep
received
message
without
perkinscoie
privileged
please advise
applicable
that
misaak
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
may contain
any attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
com mailto
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
privileged
please advise
without
copying
may contain
the
copying
or other
sender
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
privileged
please advise
without
the
the
contents
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
and
the
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
the
you
information
immediately
Thank
If
delete
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 8 2014 3 25 33
Subject
Attorney
It
looks
showing
like
the
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
SW
is
up to
from an Excel
the
total
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
added
PM
fee breakdown
your statement
hours
Sheila
1515
Sheila
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
5000
of
316
spreadsheet
0
Thanks
would
you send
me the
spreadsheet
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 8 2014 3 27 20
Subject
Re
will
Attorney
H
PM
fee breakdown
now
look for that
Lake James
Sheila
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On
8 2014
It
Jul
at
Civil
3 25
Justice
PM
Potter
looks like your statement
hours added
Sheila
up
Portland
Phone
sheila
potter
doj state or us
from an Excel spreadsheet
is
to the total of 316 0
Trial
wrote
would you send
me the
spreadsheet
showing the
Thanks
Counsel
Oregon Department
SW
Potter
Deputy Chief
1515
Sheila
OR
of Justice
Avenue
Fifth
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 8 2014 3 40 51
Subject
Excel
Attachments
1Lake Time xml
Sheila
H
PM
Geiger
Hi Sheila
Attached
is
When we
prepared the petition
the Excel document
This
was
not the total
So
316
is
My
It
sum
with the time entries

the number 316
should be 285 58
James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison Street
Oregon 97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
after
pressing the
but rather the final field number though
SUMMARY
which the
functi
function
on tabulated
an error
colleague Christine and I looked
Lake
came up
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
at this
again
widening
the
cell
and the
summ
ary appeared
Date
Time
Legal
7 24 2009
0 20email
Services
Rosenblum informing of plan

on same gender marriage
to Ellen
restrictions
7 24 2009
7 24 2009
7 25 2009
0 20telecom from Ellen Rosenblum s

0 30telcom
E State s positionM
and
inquiringwith
aboutRosenblum
7 25 2009
7 28 2009
0 20emailand
0 20email
20emailvision
to
forBear
suit Wilner Nugent
not in position to say

to
Charlesparticipation
possible co
to bring lawsuit challenging
WithoutWilliams
fwg legal cases and
counsel
setting
office
appointment
to discuss
and
plaintiffsand
aabout
clear
anticipatedclaim
him
of intent
to
7 30 2009
7 31 2009
0 40telecom
with
Tarapeople
Borelli
Lambda
to get
toat
intervene
campaign
Rosenblum to
some Ninth
pressure
outcome
7 31 2009
20telecomand
of
BRO
seeking
Legal re issues in case
intervenors
Legal
nationally
organized
in anyre
case
likely that
BRO would
a motion to stay the proceedings
file
pending the
whooffilescase
suittells
willme
nothuge
eat
posssibilityanyone
lunchresistance
in this
has lock on lawyers
0 30email
from
to and
Virginia
possiblity
re new
in to
Pennsylvania
and
Charlie
of BRO Hinkle
attempting
to case
derailfiled
case
ensure ballot
measure
lots
violations
now and
of national pressure
measure
ballot
and
at stake
analysis of const
18 months
Harm is real today
in
7 31 2009
8 1 2009
0 40email from C Hinkle with DoBoer

3 00research Oregon s marriage laws
8 4 2009
0 20email
towardfrom
equalityHinkle
C
with
8 2 2009
0 30review
LambdaVirginia
Legal
8 6 2009
8 6 2009
1 20meet with Bruce Carey to discuss possible plaintiff role

1 00Meet with Gloria Trainor to discuss case and possible co counsel
is
8 6 2009
3 00
8 7 2009
30emailbet
court
and other state litigation

article on the movement of states
email and
call
conferring
9 4 2009
9 5 2009
0 30email from C
review Nevada
suitwith
in
with
decision
review Baker v
and
at
role
to filedifferent
in statestandards
federal
Nelson
AGs
office
to discuss
about Virginia case and additional
sample of preliminary injunction
to consult
plan to
motion
9 9 2009
0 40meet with Sage Teton re assisting with research complaint

1 00meet
Countywith County Cousel Jenny Madkour re intent to sue Multnomah
9 9 2009
9 10 2009
1 50review state law re role of county in marriage determine party to sue

0 20email with Tara Borelli re Geiger plaintiffs
possibility of dec action or
stipulated
judgment
consent
decree
9 11 2010
2 50
9 13 2009
meet with Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson potential

0 70telcom with Sage re strategy BRO ballot measures
9 13 2009
0 40email
to
Deanna and Janine
case theory
9 15 2009
she
in other jursidictions
Sheila Potter at
Hinkle fwd information
whom
Borelli
Plaintiffs
nextMary monthWilliams
lawyers with
with T
Jennifer Middleton
intervenorswhether
0 50
9 8 2009
Journal
complaint
with her mentor
review
decision
decision
and review marriage complaints filed

3
and
Charlie re
Statefrom courtsto
determinationstanding
about
9 3 2009
50meetfile
St
Michigan
Li
xFed
obtain
reclass
strategyaction
going to confer
input
Circuit cases
Markwith
JohnsonGeoff toldWren
himre
town again
7 31 2009
Lambda
at
Borelli
suit
file
to and from C Hinkle re federal or state court

3 00research pennsylvania complaint current case law
claimsTara
with
case
State
Agree to keep informed
Hinkle informing
7 28 2009
40telecompolitics
case
follow
up from meeting
plaintiffs
Explanation of
Prepare retainer agreement
50strategize
receive and
review
information
on Article
III
issues
name as defendants
Death
with
Dignity Case
9th Circuit
review who
and to
immunityin Lee v
justiciability
imprimatur
when
State of Oregon
parties agree
state waiver of sov
immunity
poss of stipulated judgment
and
court
9 15 2009
0 20
9 16 2009
email to Deanna and Janine

0 20telecom with Leanne Easton
9 16 2009
name
re logitics of suit
re possible co
counsel
public scrutiny
efforts
with
regard
waiverSheila
of 11thPotter
Amendmentnegotiating
immunitypositionandwith
possibilityto
ofcomplaint
stipulated
30telecomdiscuss
judgment
9 17 2009
1 50 Travel
and from
to
of co
possibility
State s specific
with Lea Ann Easton to discuss
for Appointment
counsel
position
on case
anticipated strategy
uncertainty
about
State s policy supporting equality
9 17 2009
9 18 2009
2 50draft complaint
9 18 2009
9 19 2009
0 20email
marriagefrom
decisionsHinkle
C
re The
0
and
ArttoIIIDeanna
controversyJanine
9 19 2009
0 70meeting
9 20 2009
0 50follow
9 21 2009
9 22 2009
0 20email to Lea Ann re client concerns

clients going to seek license
0 70conf call with J Frazini BRO
and Lea Ann re complaint and campaign
9 22 2009
0 20email with C
9 22 2009
9 26 2009
1 00meeting with Sage and Lea Ann re strategy and politics BRO
0 40review NJ marriage case legal theories email to clients
9 28 2009
0 20email
9 29 2009
9 29 2009
9 29 2009
9 30 2009
1 00Meet with co counselSage Lea Ann Easton to discuss case strategy

1 00meet with J Frazinni from BRO
2 00revies complaints in Utah Ohio and California PA and Virginia
10 1 2009
0 50research experts
10 1 2009
0 30 email
20meetsuits
with
stateSage
of lawand delegate research on developing
20emailfor
to
to
Hinkle re 9th Cir Nevada
BRO
Lea Ann
and from T
resources for
Borelli
at
Lambda
same sex
Co
to
Yamin
and answer
logistics
and Hawaii appeals
Priscilla
at Mult
license
address
Sage and Amy Ruiz
email to Prof
other
strategy
Potter fwg draft lawsuit intending
with
Supreme Court
of seeking
meeting with Sage to meet clients
of other cases
10 1 2009
re importance
with Sage to begin preparing suit
upquestions
00meetingmeasure
risks of the
untold
complaint
status
issues
file
to discuss
inviting
re possibility
strategy
ballot
to participate
of intervenors
status
and intervenors beleagered anti equality may not have

Oregon read article about Windsor information on experts
20call
10 1 2009
and email from Bob Duehmig possible new plaintiff couple

0 20meet with Sage re research projects ballot measures
10 2 2009
70conferencecases
10 2 2009
10 3 2009
10 3 2009
0 20receive
becomingand
email from Bill Griesar and Bob Deuhmig interested in
0 20email to Deanna and Janine with update potential new plaintiffs experts
0 80telecom with Bill and Bob re potential plaintiffs
10 3 2009
in
othercall
withjurisd
team
to discuss
complaint
relief
sought
reviewPlaintiffs
50telecompossible
strategy
withnew
plaintiffsdiscussing
Liane
email withintervention
possible newPERRY
plaintiffsand
case to
holdingschedule
session
10 3 2009
0 20email from P Yamin
10 4 2009
0 20receive and review email Lea Ann
10 5 2009
10 5 2009
2 00meet with Deanna and Janine with Lea Ann strategy

0
and
Chaimovreview
on ArticleMemo IIIfrom
potentialcommissioned
re expert declaration
50receiveGreg
re possible witnesses
Dunnstanding
emails and
call
with
if
Carneyand
trial
byintervenors
ACLU
followby up
Hinkle
10 5 2009
10 6 2009
3 00Meet with Plaintiffs Duehmig and Griesar to discuss case

3 00review complaint with Lea Ann prep for filing
10 6 2009
0 50research
10 8 2009
0 50telecom with expert
10 9 2009
10 9 2009
variations in
9th Circuit opinion

Priscilla
questions of intervention
Windsor and Perry
Yamin
2 50discuss case research cases around country reread Windsor

0 40telecom with Geoff Wren re possible addition as plaintiffs
10 10 2009 0 20receive and review Bill Greisar s CV marriage certificate from Canada
10 11 2009 0 20receive and review Deanna and Janine s bio s CVs to prepare declarations
10 12 2009 0 50telecom with clients Lea Ann on status of complaint and plans to file
10 12 2009 0 30conf
with P
call
Lea Ann
Richardson
and
clients re handling press
10 13 2009 1 80review
final draft of complaint

edit and fwd to Lea Ann
email from Lea
Ann re pressure from BRO and national people to derail lawsuit
10 14 2009 0 20meet
witnesseswith andSageissuesdevelop
re
outline of trial in Perry case to determine
10 14 2009 0 50receive
Complaintand review email from Lea Ann
10 15 2009 0 20receive and review notice
10 16 2009 0 40telecomexpert onwith
GLBTJim
costsMcVittie
10 16 2009 0 30emails x2 with P Yamin
with
all
of case assignment
docs for services
and
discovery
file
as an
estate planning lawyer re participating
re update
10 16 2009 0 50receive
marriagesandfromreview
otherAG statesopinion and
order
pretrial
on case and proceedings

to recognize
decision
same sex
10 17 2009 0 80read 9th Circuit brief in Nevada case by Tara Borelli at Lambda
10 17 2009 1 70confer with Sage re Perry trial outline consider need for witnesses
10 17 2009 0 20email
to clients with update
10 20 1999 0 20email to S
10 21 2009 0 20email
marriagefrom
10 22 2009 1 00watch
10 24 2009 1 50attend
Rule 16 scheduling conference
Ctide
Potter to discuss
Hinkle
d
runningre
stream of
live
on case
NM
Constitution
Check
Supreme Court
How
strong
the same sex
is
oral arguments
scheduling and planning conference
with Sheila Potter and Ms
Van
begin researching summary judgment motion issues
Ter Stegge
10 26 2009 2 50read American Marriage by expert Priscilla Yamin expert on

marriage
email to P Yamin re thoughts on Declaration
10 27 2009 1 40telecom with Tara
Borelli
at
Lamda
history of
Legal re theories to advance
importance of heightened scrutiny
concerns
in case
about 9th Cir cases
10 28 2009 0 10
email to
Potter re
MSJ and requesting
call
10 29 2009 0 20
email from court re waiver of
10 30 2009 0 20email with Tara

plaintiff
re
strict
declarations in
summons
scrutiny
info
analysis
receive
and review samples
of
Nevada case
10 31 2009 0 20emails with Lea Ann re waiver of summons filed

10 31 2009 0 20email from court re waiver of summons filed
0
11 5 2009
11 6 2009
0 20email from and to K Von Ter Stegge

0 70emails re discovery and intervenors
11 8 2009
11 8 2009
0 20follow
plaintiffs
to
00meetingmust
Potter re discussing Michael
Jordan directive
upMiddleton
emailon
11 8 2009
0 20email to S
11 11 2009 0
ownwith
Ccase
Potter
20emailfile
plaintiffs
and from Tara

and K Von
Borelli
ter Stegge
BRO
wants to
re complications
re
why not
just
join
11 18 2009 0 50receive
advancingand
Yaminas
samplewith
case
decisionorganizational
to
an Amicus
11 14 2009 0 40read Nancy Cott s Declaration from Sevcik case

0 30receive and review denial of Motion to Dismiss in PA Whitewood
11 14 2009 1 00meet with Lea Ann re summary judgment motion
11 17 2009 0 20email
Declaration
to P
for fees
with ACLU and
new developments
s new
Hinkle
re
standingBRO
feverishlystandards
looking foronPlaintiffsIntervention
harm
continuing
re dismissing County concern
bewith
part Jennifer
of win
Middleton from ACLU
tocase
20emailto
updates and ideas for Declaration
casereview
andanalysis
responseof
case
forwrad Cott
tostanding
Potter sfor
emailBROre telecom
incidentswith
of marriageAnn
Lea
rein
11 4 2009
statute
11 18 2009 0 20meet
conferredwith Sage
re
new
project
on Oregon
11 18 2009 1 50work on Summary Judgment Motion

to Priscilla Yamin re
11 20 2009 0 80email
requestedfrom rS
eviewPotter
intent
statutes
on marriage and
emails to clients re declaration
rights
email
Declaration
reDom
and Sage
clarification
Partnershipon
statutestatutesemailaffected
to Leaand
Annrelief
re
11 21 2009 0 40emailsDOJ re with

reliefLea Ann and clients re Rule 16 conf
review draft letter with
11 24 2009 0 30review FRCP 26 Agreement review emails to all parties counsel
11 25 2009 0 50confer
with Lea
unconstitutionalAnn
callre
withproviding
Sheila state
Potterwith
re
Answerprovisions
and clarifying
filiingspecific
specific
requested
relief
11 25 2010 0 50telecom with Priscilla

11 25 2009 1 30work on amendments
11 30 2009 0 20emails with Lea Ann
on
re work
case proceedings
declaration
to Complaint
discussing changes
12 1 2009
12 1 2009
1 00meet with Liane to review complaint

0 20email to Potter fwd draft complaint
12 2 2009
1 80confer with
changes
Liane re additional
to complaint
amendment
for
to complaint calling out specific
review multiple drafts
statutory provisions
amended complaint
file
12 3 2009
0 20telecom with Sheila Potter re considerations of intervenors BRO

0 50telecom with Lea Ann on meeting with BRO and ACLU
0 20emailenter caseclients
to
with update in anticipation of meeting consent
12 6 2009
12 3 2009
0 20emailmore plaintiffsHinkle
wC
0 50receive
affirmativereview
12 5 2009
0 20update
ramificationsBill
to
12 6 2009
4 00meeting
12 7 2009
12 7 2009
0 30emails with clients re new strategy with introduction

1 50research case consolidation telecom with clients
12 8 2009
12 8 2009
0 20email with C
12 3 2009
12 3 2009
re efforts
30emailof
to stop case
and Bob
re
game
partial judgment
against County
to Priscilla
Yamin
liberty
consent
Answer
on
going to join suit
up
call
to
add
of
DOJ
plaintiffs
Co who wants out
judgment with injunction
degree
to judgment
for Mult
Co
telecom with Lea Ann to discuss

conclusion
historical
status
BRO
foliow
stipulated
Hinkle re sample consent
12 12 2009 0 40receive and review State
individual
on
to
complications by adding
that
BRO
BRO
email from Lea Ann re
re strategy to release Mult
Borelli
Hinkle re strategy
12 10 2009 0 20email with C
now
change
with clients and lawyers from
suitand call with
12 12 2009 0 20email
BRO
of
consider County response
anddefenses
for
about
liberal
democracy
Declaration
12 13 2009 2 00
meet with
Griesar
Duehmig
Geiger and Lea Ann
Nelson
12 16 2009 0 20
emails to
12 16 2009 0 50Review
Potter query re consolidation
Yamin
notes
Declaration
and
email to
position
on new
suit
fwd drafts to clients
Priscilla
12 17 2009 3 00work on MSJ

review cases review law review articles
12 17 2009 0 20emails to and from C Hinkle re need to show stigma with experts
stigma unnecessary
forwith
addSheila
l
expertsscheduling
re
50emailneed
12 18 2009 0 50telecom
schedulewith
workSheila
with
PotterLea
conference
briefing
Annand
toKate
respondvon
confer
tofrom
simple equal protection
12 17 2009 0
toteremailStegge
with Lea Ann re
confirmJennifer
aMiddleton
briefing
re consolidation
12 18 2009 3 70review
NM
same sex marriage
Ann
re issues of standing for
12 19 2009 1 00access
and review UT
12 19 2009 0 20email
argumentand
to
12 19 2009 0 50Mult
12 19 2009 0 20emailwon
from
to consolidate
telecom with Lea
BREF
opinion
Hinkle re
email and
BRO
Co Law Library to research

from Deanna re UT decision
12 22 2009 0 50review County Answer
research for MSJ
decision
12 18 2009 0 50review Rummell complaint and motion
email and
call
with Lea Ann
consolidation
delay as primary
consolidation in the books

explain that
call
UT
will
get stay
We
likely
with Lea Ann
12 22 2009 0 20email to P Tomsic lead counsel on UT case requesting pleadings

12 22 2009 3 00review cases on Summary Judgment review UT briefings
12 23 2009 0 10email
requestto S
Potter re service on State Defendants
premature consolidation
12 23 2009 5 00work on
draft
MSJ
12 23 2009 0
use in
Voters Pamplet email same to T Borelli and consider how
12 24 2009 3 50review Utah decisions
work on MSJ
12 25 2009 4 00work on MSJ
review cases review law review law review articles
2004MSJ
50researchto
12 27 2009 0 20email
to
and from T
Borelli
re possible amicus
on case
12 27 2009 0 50locate and read Rosenblum amicus in Sevcik case in 9th Cir
12 27 2009 2 50researchrequest FRCP 42 re Consolidation prepare draft in opposition per
12 29 2009 3
00workof
cleintsMSJ
on
rightsdraft
12 30 2009 0 20email from

12 30 2009 0 20email to
telecom with Lea Ann re opposing
clients
delay
consolidation
and Rule 16 conference

seeking clarification on State s
court re schduling order
from
andconsolidation
Potter
position re
1 1 2010
0 30receive and review scheduling
1 1 2009
0 20emails
respondfrom and
1 2 2010
1 2 2010
4 00Work on MSJ
0 30review Plaintiffs
1 2 2010
1 2 2010
1 2 2010
0 20email to and from C Hinkle fwd opposition

0 20receive and review Motion to Set Deadline
1 5 2010
1 00confer with
1 3 2010
0 10email from Duehmig
1 3 2010
1 6 2010
2 00work on MSJ fwd to Lea Ann

0 70telecom with Lea Ann to go over declarations talk over theory of case
0
withand Leareview
Ann State s response to BRO s Motion to Consolidate
1 7 2010
1 8 2010
1 8 2010
20finalize
and
to
and Bob
Bill
telecom with Lea Ann
and time
services
to
Kitchen response to motion for Stay in Utah case
BRO
Opposition to
file
order from court
Potter to Court re scheduling
Consolidation effort
re preparing
re status
to consolidation to avoid
delay
for response filed by State
declarations to
accompany
MSJ
update
30Receiveconfer
1 9 2010
1 50Meet with Lea Ann to review MSJ

0 10email from K Von Ter Stegge re services
0 50email
forwardto toPriscilla
Lea AnnYamin re status of Declaration
1 9 2010
1 50Work on MSJ
1 9 2010
1 11 2010
bill
1 11 2010
0 30telecom with S Potter re developments

1 50receive review and edit plaintiff declarations from
0 20email to clients re declarations issues finalizing
1 12 2010
1 40receive review and
deanna and
1 12 2010
1 13 2010
6 00Work on MSJ
3 00Final Edits of MSJ
1 13 2010
4 00Meet with Lea Ann and
1 13 2010
1 14 2010
1 14 2010
0 30receive and review County filing re Motion to Consolidate

0 40receive and review Oklahoma decision
0 20email to clients re status review and send email to Middleton
1 14 2010
0 20email
frustrationsJ
from
1 14 2010
0 50telecom with Lea Ann and S
receive
and review and
Lea Ann edits
edit plaintiff
staff
declarations from
to finalize brief
and
and bob
janine
file
re delay
Middleton re issues of delay caused by consolidation

Potter
email from Middleton
client
issues of relief
requested and Rummell complaint variation
1 16 2010
0 50telecom with Rummell counsel
1 18 2010
1 19 2010
0 20email from Duehmig and Griesar re communications with other

0 60review Rummell Response various emails between counsel
1 20 2010
1 21 2010
0 20email from
1 21 2010
1 21 2010
4 00travel to Eugene for hearing on consolidation

1 30Scheduling hearing consolidation hearing
1 23 2010
0 20email
testimonyfrom
1 26 2010
1 28 2010
2 00Work on Amended MSJ incorporating SmithKline issues

0 50telecom with Lea Ann re supplemental briefing and edits to MSJ
1 40meet at Perkins Coie with M Isaacs and T Johnson re briefing
1 29 2010
00revieworder
reviewSmithKline
receive
and
fwd to Lea Ann
decision
Isaac
re filing
to Priscilla
and review emails
Lea Ann re briefing schedule
of
call
with Lea Ann
new complaint and changes
Yamin with
strategy
status update
plaintiffs
scheduling
redlined
no need
for trial
re extension of time to submit briefs
strategy
2 2 2010
2 3 2010
0 80telecom with clients re updating on case

0 20emails
with
re out of town during
accommodateclients
2 4 2010
0 20receive and review State
2 5 2010
0 20receive and review email from Lea Ann
2 5 2010
2 6 2010
5 00revise MSJ Memo

0 30receive
amendedandMSJreview
memoemails between
2 6 2010
0 10email from T Johnson
2 9 2010
2 9 2010
0 20receive and review Rummell motion for extension of time

0 10email from K Von ter Stegge requesting extension to file response
2 9 2010
0 30email
Sevcikfrom
2 9 2010
0 10email
possiblitySofPotter
to
expeditingseeking
2 10 2010
2 10 2010
0 20receive and review Order from court granting ext of time

0 20email
to
re
PossibilityT
ofBorelli
mootingtimeline
our casefor Sevcik oral argument in 9th
2 10 2010
0 10email
2 11 2010
2 12 2010

0
schedand Datesreview Judge
2 13 2010
0 40read
2 15 2010
5 00Edit
2 17 2010
2 17 2010
1 20receive and review Rummell Memorandum

3 00final edits to brief
2 19 2010
2 19 2010
2 23 2010
2 25 2010
3 00travelwon t to
from Salem for AG Rosenblum s announcement on case
0 40receive and review State s answer to Rummell complaint
0 30emails with Lea Ann re updates on case receive and review email to
3 1 2010
0 50review Texas
3 2 2010
3 4 2010
1 00Meet with BRO lawyers and Lea Ann

0 24receiveJenny Makdourreview
and
County response
3 4 2010
3 7 2010
0 30telecom with Amicus lawyer
3 9 2010
3 10 2010
0 20email from Lea Ann re 9th Cir to hear oral arg in Sevcik
0 50emails with S Potter re possilbity of moving up hearing email from
to
s request for
re
possible
ways
amended
pleadings
on extension
counsel
Nevada AG request
input
on theory
re briefing schedule
20receivewith
of time
and
filing
s Motion
to withdraw
that
State
Nevada
brief
clerk
cir
issues
for extension of time
s Order granting
Dec
of
Potter
extension and Amended Order
Virigina opinion
Brief with Lea
Anne
Answer
telecom with Lea Ann re same
Rummell case
to
that
vonwith
ter
confer
SheilaStegge
and
to discuss
strategy
for expediting
email to Kate Von Ter Stegge
court re possible earlier hearing date
and
email to
re Nike
court
with other counsel
0 20email from K Von Ter stegge re Liberty Counsel calling

0 50email from C Pew re oral argument pc w Lea Ann emails amongst
counsel re conf call about McShane s inquiry
3 12 2010
0 50review developments
3 13 2010
3 16 2010
3 16 2010
0 10review email to C Pew re need for oral argument

0 10notice from court re assn of counsel S Potter
0 40telecom with counsel
confer with other counsel re changing
3 17 2010
3 18 2010
0 80receive and review State s Response

0 10email from C Pew re oral argument
3 18 2010
Pewand
calls
in cases around country
with counsel
3 20 2010
0 50review Michigan
3 19 2010
1 00multiple emails between

response
litigation
to
conferring
issues
MSJ
confer
on need
hearing date
with Lea Ann
for oral
argument
hearing date
review state s
3 24 2010
0 20emails between
3 26 2010
3 26 2010
3 27 2010
0 20email from M Isaacs re coordination

0 10email to C Pew re recording proceedings
0 20receive
absenceand
recordingreview
oremail
streamingC
with
Pew about Nelson and Geiger
3 31 2010
0 10email from
counsel
re coordination
Singer seeking
follow
email from lea Ann re same
parties to change
email from Lea Ann re stay
Clerk
court opinion
district
3 12 2010
3 12 2010
40emailsto
in
advance
will
anddefend
30telecomKate
to
time
re possible amicus
Potter with
C Pew
argument
oral
add
consent
to
file
Amicus
response
3 31 2010
0 50telecom with C
in light
3 31 2010
Hinkle re justiciability
issues
case and controversy
stays
of recent Virginia decision
0 50receive and review Amicus
Oregon businesses
re
3 31 2010
0 50receive and review Amicus Oregon United
4 2 2010
4 2 2010
0 50review amicus from Jewish Federation

0 50research issue of possible stay
4 3 2010
0 20receive and review
4 9 2010
4 10 2010
0 30review communication agreement

0
TdyingBorelli
re
individualother
4 10 2010
0 40conf
4 13 2010
4 13 2010
1
Law Schoolpreparation
in
article
1 00Meet with Tom Johnson
4 13 2010
4 14 2010
2 00further research on
4 15 2010
and send to counsel

0 50confer with Lea Ann re summary judgment hearing
4 15 2010
1 20prepare
4 16 2010
on issues to allocate presentation topics

1 30meet at Perkins Coie with lawyers in advance to prepare for
2 50telecom with Lea Ann in prep for argument review cases
court notices re Order granting
withpeople
against staying
casesorders
00researchNW
50telecomWindsor
to appear
which
recognizecourtmarriagegranted
immediatereasons
decision
with Kevin Diaz and
call
Amici leave
with Lea Ann
confer
into
40telecomrelief
for Marriage
Fidanque
for hearing
re hearing coordination
review Pierce v
in preparation
Society of Sisters
with
terminallyBorelli
Tara
ill
litigantsarguments
re
begin preparing for oral argument
stay
and
argument planning
against a stay
Pedersen and
for oral
draft
discussion point table
4 20 2010
0 40research capable of repitition but evading review

0 04receive and review late filing from NOM
4 50multiplerespond conversations
NOMsnotice
research receivewith andcounsel
request stayed
4 20 2010
4 20 2010
email flow chart
email to
filingfrom
courtissues
oral
M
ofthat
4 17 2010
4 20 2010
to prepare for hearing
rereview
4 17 2010
for meeting with counsel
argument
Williams
stay
hearinghow to
research standing issues
4 20 2010
0 30telecom
interveneand email from Roger Harris conferring on 11th hour motion to
2 00follow up with all counsel and planning multiple emails and phone calls
0 20email from Roger Harris outlining position of all parties to intervention
4 20 2010
0 40research
4 20 2010
4 20 2010
0 20email from Roger Harris

2
clientspleadings
all
and Lea
4 20 2010
0 20receive and review ORDER
4 21 2010
4 21 2010
0 20email from Court re NOM filed motion to delay hearing ORDER denying
0 40conf call with Rummell counsel on intervention issues and how to respond
6 00travel
reviewto
SchuetteEugene Casehearing
for
prepare for hearing emails with C Hinkle
4 21 2010
to court re
NOM
fromAnn
00final
Portlandprep
NOM s website
NOM has filed motion
review press release on
00reviewwith
4 22 2010 10
4 22 2010
4 27 2010
NOM
for hearing
emails to and from
all
to intervene
counsel
telecom
re directions for hearing
meet with Lea Ann and
clients
hearing
return to
4 27 2010
0 20receive and review ECF supplemental declaration

0 20review 6th Circuit Stay decision in Tennessee case
0 20ECF notice re scheduling for 5 14 hearing
4 28 2010
4 28 2010
0 20email with Lea Ann re motion to intervene and planning

0
next
upwith
withclients
Tom Johnsonconfirming
re statussteps
reviewappearance
notes fromatLeanext
Annhearing
on
50telecomfollow
standing
4 29 2010
1 00receive
Johnsonand
re
samereviewNOM
researchnotice
s
regarding recusal
4 29 2010
5 1 2010
0 20ECF notice
2 00review and
re transcript
5 1 2010
5 5 2010
5 6 2010
0 40review memo and cases on recusal

1 70receive and review BRO response to
call
5 8 2010
with
edit opposition motion
Tom
telecom with
Tom
issues
confer
with counsel
research cases
state s opposition
research additional
NOM
s notice
confer
with Lea Ann
filing
s supplemental
authority referencing
Schuette
5 12 2010
0 40receive and review NOM add briefing Reply in Support of Intervention

1 80review cases on standing john doe status telecom in prep for hearing
0 10email from C Pew re logistics for hearing
5 12 2010
1 50receive and review motion
5 8 2010
5 11 2010
to strike
standing issues john doe status
emails between
counsel
5 12 2010
0 20email x4 with
5 12 2010
4 00travel
5 12 2010
5 12 2010
0 20receive and review updated Eastman Declaration

0 20ECF notice re association of counsel for County
5 12 2010
5 13 2010
1 00meet with
5 13 2010
5 14 2010
5 14 2010
2 00attend hearing re NOM intervention

0 30email from and to Jenny Madkour re order from state
0 20email
Appealfrom Roger Harris noticing intent to file Motion
5 15 2010
5 15 2010
0
stayto and
0 20ECF notice Order
5 15 2010
5 15 2010
0 20email
samefrom
genderMiddleton
J
5 16 2010
5 16 2010
0 40receive and review proposed Order

0 20telecom with Lea Ann re relief
5 16 2010
0 30conference
5 16 2010
5 16 2010
0 20email from Harris re

2 20research stay issues
5 16 2010
1 00meet with
5 16 2010
5 17 2010
5 18 2010
2
emergencycollaborate
and
stay
with
2 80meet with clients and county
6 13 2010
court clerk re presentation
and from Eugene
to
80calls with
counsel
and review Motion
fromapplication
to Strike
call
Borelli
re pleadings
court to issue opinion

Notice
of Appeal
and K Diaz
re proposed
logitics
strategy
call
of filings in response
on May 19
NOM
re modification
make
from
same sex
to
edits
possible outcomes
strategy
on Monday
with 9th Cir
50researchfor
lea
285 58
1 21 2010222 mi
2 19 2010102 00travel to and from Salem
5 12 2010110 mi travel mileage
4 21 2010110 mi travel mileage
to courthouse
ann on
anticipated opposition to motion
in anticipation
and prepare motion
travel
up
order
clients to discuss
lawfees
and samples
follow
for Stay Pending
notice of appeal
30file notice of appearance
5 13 2010222 mi mileage
issues
for hearing
clients post hearing
20emailto
00researchattorney
research
authentication
of ruling
declaration
read ruling
and memorandum
for
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 8 2014 3 48 21
Subject
RE
m glad
This
won
asked
open
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Subject
in Excel
Perriguey
From
Excel
Sheila
can
mailto
July 08
PM
Geiger
you convert
lake
2014
law
it
works
from XML
into
XLS and
re send
com
3 41 PM
Excel
Geiger
is
Excel
Hi Sheila
Attached
When
we
This
was
the
prepared
not
the
the
document
petition
total
sum
with the
the
but
time entries
number
rather
the
316
came
final
up after
field
pressing
number
though
the
SUMMARY
which
the
function
function
tabulated
So 316
My
is
an error
colleague
Christine and
looked
appeared
It
should be 285
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Portland
T
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
58
law
Guardian
97205
works
of
com
Civil
Justice
at
this again
widening
the
cell
and
the
summary
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 8 2014 3 50 42
Subject
Lake
in
Attachments
Final
Lake Time
Lake
James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison Street
Oregon 97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Sheila
H
PM
XLS
xls
A
1
Date
B
Time
7 25 2013
0 20
7 25 2013
0 20
7 25 2013
0 20
7 26 2013
0 30
7 26 2013
0 20
7 29 2013
0 20
7 29 2013
3 00
7 31 2013
0 40
8 1 2013
0 40
8 1 2013
0 20
8 1 2013
0 30
13
8 1 2013
0 40
14
8 2 2013
3 00
15
8 5 2013
0 20
16
8 3 2013
0 30
17
8 7 2013
1 20
18
8 7 2013
1 00
19
8 7 2013
3 00
20
8 8 2013
0 30
21
9 4 2013
0 50
22
9 5 2013
0 50
23
9 6 2013
0 30
24
9 9 2013
0 40
25
9 10 2013
1 00
26
9 10 2013
1 50
27
9 11 2013
0 20
28
9 12 2014
2 50
29
9 14 2013
0 70
30
9 14 2013
0 40
9 16 2013
2 50
32
9 16 2013
0 20
33
9 17 2013
0 20
34
9 17 2013
0 30
9 18 2013
1 50
36
9 18 2013
0 20
37
9 19 2013
2 50
38
9 19 2013
0 20
10
11
12
31
35
C
1
Legal Services
email to
Ellen
email to
Bear Wilner
telecom
from
telcom
email to Charles Hinkle
email to
research
telecom
with Tara
Borelli
at
Lambda Legal re issues
telecom
with Tara
Borelli
at
Lambda Legal re nationally organized
with
Rosenblum
informing
Nugent
Rosenblum s
Ellen
E Rosenblum
of
possible
office
and
plan to bring lawsuit challenging

co
him
and
cases
legal
on same gender
restrictions
vision
marriage
for suit
setting appointment to discuss case
Williams about
informing
fwg
counsel
of
anticipated
intent to
and inquiring about State s position
case
seeking
suit
file
and
input
Without
clear
claim
and
State
plaintiffs
not
in
position to
participation
and from C Hinkle re federal or state court

pennsylvania
complaint
current case law
a motion to stay the proceedings
pending
in
case
outcome
the
intervenors
some Ninth
10
file
11
telecom
with Geoff
email to
and from Charlie Hinkle re new case
12
national
pressure
13
email
14
research
15
email
16
review
17
meet with Bruce Carey to discuss possible
18
Meet with Gloria Trainor to discuss case and possible co counsel
19
obtain
20
email
21
review
22
meet with Mary Williams and Sheila Potter at AGs
23
email
24
meet with Sage Teton re
25
meet with County Cousel Jenny Madkour
26
review
27
email with Tara
28
meet with Deanna Geiger and Janine Nelson
29
telcom
30
email to
Wren re
and
at stake
analysis
from C Hinkle with DoBoer
Virginia class
action
St
complaint
x 3 from and to Charlie re standing

Nevada decision
Baker v
review
with
Borelli
county
re Geiger
confer with Charlie Hinkle
re
in
32
email to
Deanna and Janine re
33
telecom
with
34
telecom
with Sheila Potter
Circuit
ballot
other
and from
35
position
State
36
meet with Sage and delegate
37
draft
38
email
policy
states
of
Borelli
in
she
role
toward
is
standards
to discuss plan to
case
BRO
18
likely
that
BRO would
Rosenblum
pressure
files
derail
suit will
not eat lunch
case to ensure
ballot
in this
town
measure
again
lots of
mo
equality
Legal re strategy
going
to confer
with her
bet
Fed State courts
file
suit in
next
mentor
Jennifer
Middleton
determination about
whether
to
file
in
state federal court
month
sue Multnomah
of
preliminary injunction motion
potential
County
sue
determine party to
dec action or stipulated judgment consent decree
plaintiffs
measures
up from meeting
issues
Explanation
review
cases
name
public
of
case theory
Prepare
and strategize receive
and immunityin Lee v
of suit
State
of
Oregon
retainer
Article III
issues
who
to
name
as defendants
state waiv
scrutiny
efforts
on developing
the
agreement
and review information on
discuss waiver
possibility of
co
of
counsel
11th
complaint
other
suits
state
of
Supreme
Court s
Amendment immunity and
on case
law
complaint
risks of
sample
complaint
supporting equality
from C Hinkle re The untold
anyone who
attempting to
and additional lawyers with whom to consult
Appointment with Lea Ann Easton to discuss
research
him
told
possiblity of
measure
Lambda
at
negotiating position with regard to complaint
Travel to
any case
litigation
different
office
Leanne Easton re possible co counsel
for
and Mark Johnson
ballot
in
jursidictions
possibility of
review
logitics
with
to intervene
cases
role
re intent to
constitutional
Death with Dignity Case 9th
call
Virginia
marriage
follow
31
and
Circuit
Virginia
now and
on the movement
intervenors
plaintiffs
BRO
Sage re strategy
Deanna and Janine
and other state
with research
assisting
role of
review
in
and
to get people
Nelson
from C Hinkle fwd information about
state law re
violations
plaintiff
filed
huge resistance
Pennsylvania
const
article
email
and review marriage complaints
in
decision
decision
Li
Journal
me
tells
filed
of
Michigan
Oregon s marriage laws
from C Hinkle with
case
posssibility of
of
claims
politics
campaign
same sex marriage decisions
anticipated
strategy
possibility of
stipulated
uncertainty about State
judgment
s
specific
to
39
9 20 2013
0 20
40
9 20 2013
0 70
41
9 21 2013
0 50
42
9 22 2013
0 20
43
9 23 2013
0 70
44
9 23 2013
0 20
45
9 23 2013
1 00
46
9 27 2013
0 40
47
9 29 2013
0 20
48
9 30 2013
1 00
49
9 30 2013
1 00
50
9 30 2013
1 00
51
10 1 2013
2 00
52
10 2 2013
0 50
10 2 2013
0 30
54
10 2 2013
0 20
55
10 2 2013
0 20
56
10 3 2013
0 70
57
10 3 2013
0 20
58
10 4 2013
0 20
59
10 4 2013
0 80
60
10 4 2013
0 50
61
10 4 2013
0 20
62
10 5 2013
0 20
63
10 6 2013
2 00
64
10 6 2013
0 50
65
10 6 2013
3 00
66
10 7 2013
3 00
67
10 7 2013
0 50
68
10 9 2013
0 50
69
10 10 2013
2 50
70
10 10 2013
0 40
71
10 11 2013
0 20
72
10 12 2013
0 20
73
10 13 2013
0 50
74
10 13 2013
0 30
75
10 14 2013
1 80
76
10 15 2013
0 20
77
10 15 2013
0 50
78
10 16 2013
0 20
79
10 17 2013
0 40
53
C
Deanna and Janine re importance
39
email to
40
meeting with Sage to begin preparing
41
follow
42
email to
Lea Ann re
43
conf
with
44
email with
45
meeting with Sage and Lea Ann re strategy and
46
review
47
email to
48
meeting with BRO
49
Meet with co counselSage
50
meet with
51
revies complaints
in
52
research
email to Prof
up meeting with Sage to meet
call
Frazini
Hinkle
BRO
re 9th
NJ marriage case
fwg
Potter
experts
address
clients
going
clients
theories
Co
at Mult
lawsuit intending to
questions
issues
clients
file
Sage and Amy Ruiz to discuss strategy
ballot
measure
strategy
from BRO
and
Ohio
California
Lambda
PA and
Yamin
Priscilla
Virginia
inviting
to participate
Borelli
53
Oregon
read
about
54
call
55
meet with Sage re research projects
56
conference
57
receive
58
email to
Deanna and Janine with update
59
telecom
with
60
telecom
with Liane discussing
61
email
62
receive
63
meet with Deanna and Janine with Lea Ann
64
receive
65
Meet with
66
review
67
research
68
telecom
69
discuss case
70
telecom
71
receive
and review
72
receive
and review Deanna and Janine s bio s CVs to prepare declarations
73
telecom
with
clients
74
conf
with
75
review
76
meet with Sage
77
receive
and review email from Lea Ann
78
receive
and review notice
79
telecom
with Jim McVittie
at
Windsor
and email from Bob Duehmig
re
possibility of
new
possible
and Bob re potential
status
of
other cases
and intervenors
beleagered
anti
equality
may
not
have resources
for
couple
plaintiff
measures
ballot
Griesar
Bill
intervenors
on experts
information
team to discuss complaint
and review email from
Bill
controversy
status
BRO
and from T
with
III
and campaign
politics
email to
and answer
logistics
email to
call
Art
seek license
to
Lea Ann Easton to discuss case
Utah
article
for
strategy
suit
Nevada and Hawaii appeals
legal
draft
license
and Lea Ann re complaint
Cir
Lea Ann
Frazinni
concerns
client
seeking
of
sought
relief
variations
and Bob Deuhmig
potential
new
interested
plaintiffs
cases
in
in
in
becoming
other
jurisd
Plaintiffs
experts
plaintiffs
PERRY case and holding
intervention
possible
new
email with possible
plaintiffs
new
plaintiffs
to schedule
strategy session
from P Yamin re expert declaration

and review email Lea Ann re possible witnesses
trial
if
strategy
and review Memo from Dunn Carney commissioned

Plaintiffs
complaint
9th
with
Circuit
with expert
call
final
Lea Ann
opinion
Priscilla
research
with Geoff
prep
on
Article III
standing
and potential intervenors
for filing
questions
of
intervention
Bill
around
cases
Greisar s
country
CV
reread
marriage
Lea Ann on status

Lea Ann
complaint
re develop
of
Windsor and Perry
Yamin
Wren re possible addition as
Richardson
draft of
by ACLU by Greg Chaimov
Duehmig and Griesar to discuss case
edit
outline
of
and
certificate
complaint
clients
of trial
in
with
planning
from Canada
and plans to
re handling
and fwd to Lea Ann
case assignment
estate
Windsor
plaintiffs
file
press
email
from Lea Ann re pressure from BRO and national
Perry case to determine witnesses

all
docs
for
services
and discovery
lawyer re
file
pretrial
participating
as
and issues
Complaint
order
an expert on GLBT costs
people to
derail
lawsuit
follow
up emails and
call
80
10 17 2013
0 30
81
10 17 2013
0 50
82
10 18 2013
0 80
83
10 18 2013
1 70
84
10 18 2013
0 20
85
10 21 2003
0 20
86
10 22 2013
0 20
87
10 23 2013
1 00
88
10 25 2013
1 50
89
10 27 2013
2 50
90
10 28 2013
1 40
91
10 29 2013
0 10
92
10 30 2013
0 20
93
10 31 2013
0 20
94
11 1 2013
0 20
95
11 1 2013
0 20
96
11 5 2013
0 20
97
11 6 2013
0 20
98
11 7 2013
0 70
99
11 9 2013
1 00
100
11 9 2013
0 20
101
11 9 2013
0 20
102
11 12 2013
0 20
103
11 15 2013
0 40
105
11 15 2013
1 00
106
11 18 2013
0 20
107
11 19 2013
0 50
108
11 19 2013
0 20
109
11 19 2013
1 50
110
11 21 2013
0 80
111
11 22 2013
0 40
112
11 25 2013
0 30
113
11 26 2013
0 50
114
11 26 2014
0 50
115
11 26 2013
1 30
116
12 1 2013
0 20
117
12 2 2013
1 00
118
12 2 2013
0 20
119
12 3 2013
1 80
120
12 4 2013
0 20
121
12 4 2013
0 50
104
0 30
C
x2 with P Yamin re update
80
emails
81
receive
82
read 9th
83
confer with
84
email to
clients
85
email to
86
email
87
watch
88
attend
89
read
90
telecom
with Tara
Borelli
91
email to
re
92
email
93
email with Tara re
94
emails with
95
email
96
email to
97
email
98
emails re discovery
99
meeting with Jennifer Middleton
and review AG opinion
Sage re Perry
Potter
stream
scheduling
American
Supreme
and planning
at
expert
on history
begin
importance
Yamin re thoughts
heightened
of
summary judgment motion issues
researching
email to
scrutiny
on Declaration
concerns
about
9th
Cir
cases
analysis
and review samples
receive
declarations
of plaintiff
in
Nevada
case
summons filed
summons filed
of
re discussing
Michael Jordan
harm to
continuing
directive
for
plaintiffs
fees
and intervenors
BRO wants
from ACLU
up email to and from Tara
to
email with
103
read
104
receive
105
meet with Lea Ann re summary judgment motion
106
email to
107
receive
108
meet with Sage re new project on Oregon statutes on marriage and
109
work on Summary Judgment
110
email
111
emails with
112
review
113
confer with
114
telecom
115
work on amendments to Complaint
116
emails with
117
meet with Liane to review
118
email to Potter
119
confer with Liane re additional
120
telecom
with Sheila Potter
121
telecom
with
and K Von
ter
Stegge
re standards
Nancy Cott s Declaration

and review denial
and ideas
standing
of
Motion
clarification
Lea Ann and
clients
FRCP 26 Agreement
re
work
draft
new
decision
PA Whitewood
in
Declaration
BRO
emails to
to
file
own
case
win
feverishly looking
for Plaintiffs
standing
organizational
plaintiffs
why
emails to
all
parties
and
as
Lea Ann re advancing
with
re declaration
review
specific
case
forwrad Cott Declaration
telecom
clients
16 conf
on declaration
Lea Ann discussing
fwd
BRO
on statutes affected
re Rule
review
for
for
Lea Ann re providing state with

Priscilla
of
on case
from Sevcik case
P Yamin with updates
from S Potter re
be part
new developments
on Intervention
Motion to Dismiss
of
and review analysis
re
must
case
email to
Hinkle
with
ACLU and Middleton
102
Borelli
re complications
join
101
with
marriage
of
follow
Potter
call
100
of
case
in
from and to K Von Ter Stegge re dismissing County concern
running
summons info
of
scrutiny
from court re waiver
tide
and Ms Van Ter Stegge
with Sheila Potter
Yamin
Priscilla
same sex marriage
the
is
Lamda Legal re theories to advance
Lea Ann re waiver
Potter
conference
strong
arguments
oral
MSJ and requesting
strict
witnesses
for
conference
How
Check
Court
by expert
from court re waiver
16 scheduling
Constitution
NM
of
need
consider
same sex marriages from other states
Lambda
at
Borelli
on case
to discuss Rule
Marriage
Potter
outline
trial
update
from C Hinkle re
live
and decision to recognize
Nevada case by Tara
Circuit brief in
with
on case and proceedings
relief
rights
email to
with
and response
to Potter s email re incidents
of
marriage
Priscilla
for
DOJ re
Partnership
statute
email to
Lea Ann and Sage re intent
relief
counsel
provisions
unconstitutional
call
with Sheila
Potter
re
filiing
Answer and
clarifying specific
case proceedings
amendment
complaint
changes to complaint
re considerations
of
calling
out
intervenors
BRO
Lea Ann on meeting with BRO and ACLU
statute
Yamin re Declaration
Dom
review
changes to complaint
complaint
in
conferred
requested
draft letter
sample
case
specific
statutory provisions
review
multiple drafts
file
amended
complaint
relief
requested
not
122
12 4 2013
0 20
123
12 7 2013
0 20
124
12 4 2013
0 50
125
12 6 2013
0 20
126
12 7 2013
4 00
127
12 8 2013
0 30
128
12 8 2013
1 50
129
12 9 2013
0 30
130
12 9 2013
0 20
131
12 11 2013
0 20
132
12 13 2013
0 40
133
12 13 2013
0 20
134
12 14 2013
2 00
135
12 17 2013
0 20
136
12 17 2013
0 50
137
12 18 2013
3 00
138
12 18 2013
0 20
139
12 18 2013
0 50
140
12 19 2013
0 50
141
12 19 2013
3 70
142
12 19 2013
0 50
143
12 20 2013
1 00
144
12 20 2013
0 20
145
12 20 2013
0 50
146
12 20 2013
0 20
147
12 23 2013
0 50
148
12 23 2013
0 20
149
12 23 2013
3 00
150
12 24 2013
0 10
151
12 24 2013
5 00
152
12 24 2013
0 50
153
12 25 2013
3 50
154
12 26 2013
4 00
155
12 28 2013
0 20
156
12 28 2013
0 50
157
12 28 2013
2 50
158
12 30 2013
3 00
159
12 31 2013
0 20
160
12 31 2013
0 20
161
1 2 2014
0 30
162
1 2 2013
0 20
163
1 3 2014
4 00
C
with
update
122
email to
123
email
124
receive
125
update to
126
meeting with
127
emails with
128
research
129
email
call
with
130
email with
Hinkle
re strategy
131
email with
Hinkle
re
132
receive
133
email to
134
meet with Griesar Duehmig
135
emails to
136
Review P
137
work on MSJ
138
emails to
139
email with Sheila re scheduling
140
telecom
141
review
142
review
Rummell complaint
143
access
and review UT opinion
144
email to
145
Mult
146
email
147
review
148
email to
149
review
150
email to
151
work on
draft
152
research
153
review
154
work on MSJ
155
email to
156
locate
157
research
158
work on MSJ
159
email
160
email to
161
receive
162
emails
163
Work on MSJ
clients
w C
Hinkle
re
in
BRO
efforts of
to stop case
and lawyers from BRO
clients
new
re
clients
telecom
Borelli
Yamin
Potter
by adding more
telecom
Nelson
with Sheila Potter
need to show
ter
email
stigma
Stegge
P Tomsic
with
with
simple equal
Lea Ann re need

briefing
protection
for
add
telecom
the
UT
UT
2004 Voters
review
and from T
Pamplet
with
Lea Ann re issues
of
standing
as primary
argument
books
get stay
will
We
likely
won
briefings
premature consolidation
request
cases
Borelli
review
telecom
law review
re possible
amicus
FRCP 42 re Consolidation
with
from court re schduling
in
and consider how to use
in
MSJ
law
review
Sevcik
case
9th
in
draft in
Cir
opposition
Lea Ann re opposing
order
articles
amicus on case
prepare
per
consolidation
clients
delay
request
of
cleints
and Rule 16 conference
and from S Potter seeking
and review scheduling

from and to S
Borelli
work on MSJ
and read Rosenblum
draft
same to T
email
order
clarification
from court
on State s position re consolidation

telecom
Potter to Court re scheduling
stigma unnecessary
work with Lea Ann to respond
schedule
MSJ
Utah decisions
on Declaration
experts
Lea Ann
review
degree
consent
clients
Lea Ann
on State Defendants
re service
status
on UT case requesting pleadings
lead counsel
on Summary Judgment
Potter
individual liberty
MSJ
delay
in
explain that
call
County
suit
with experts
to confirm
for
with
call
consolidation
and
democracy
confer
and from C Hinkle re BRO consolidation
from Deanna re UT decision
judgment against
articles
research
and
of suit
partial
Co
fwd drafts to
and motion to consolidate
Co Law Library to research
cases
plaintiffs
Mult
liberal
conference
briefing
ramifications
Co who wants out
for
Priscilla
law review
and Kate von
email
and position on new
same sex marriage decision
County Answer
add
of
join suit
DOJ
and Lea Ann
email to
review
Hinkle re
about
Geiger
notes
plaintiffs
Lea Ann to discuss
with
conclusion
query re consolidation
and from C
to
call
on stipulated judgment with injunction
historical
cases
to enter case
clients
sample consent to judgment
Yamin Declaration
review
up
foliow
BRO
from Lea Ann re affirmative defenses
re strategy to release Mult
and review State s Answer

Priscilla
with
for
complications
email
strategy with introduction
case consolidation
NM
consent
and Bob re game change now that BRO going to
Bill
meeting
of
and consider County response
review
and
anticipation
with
services
Lea Ann
and time to respond
rights
for
BREF
to email
from Jennifer Middleton
re consolidation
164
1 3 2014
0 30
165
1 3 2014
2 20
166
1 3 2014
0 20
167
1 3 2014
0 20
168
1 6 2014
1 00
169
1 4 2014
0 10
170
1 4 2014
2 00
171
1 7 2014
0 70
172
1 8 2014
0 30
173
1 9 2014
1 50
174
1 9 2014
0 10
175
1 10 2014
0 50
176
1 10 2014
1 50
177
1 10 2014
0 30
178
1 12 2014
1 50
179
1 12 2014
0 20
180
1 13 2014
1 40
181
1 13 2014
6 00
182
1 14 2014
3 00
183
1 14 2014
4 00
184
1 14 2014
0 30
185
1 15 2014
0 40
186
1 15 2014
0 20
187
1 15 2014
0 20
188
1 15 2014
0 50
189
1 17 2014
0 50
190
1 19 2014
0 20
191
1 20 2014
0 60
192
1 21 2014
2 00
193
1 22 2014
0 20
194
1 22 2014
4 00
195
1 22 2014
1 30
196
1 24 2014
0 20
197
1 27 2014
2 00
198
1 29 2014
0 50
199
1 30 2014
1 40
200
2 3 2014
0 80
201
2 4 2014
0 20
202
2 5 2014
0 20
203
2 6 2014
0 20
204
2 6 2014
5 00
205
2 7 2014
0 30
C
164
review
Kitchen
165
finalize
166
email to
167
receive
168
confer with
169
email
170
work on MSJ
171
telecom
with
172
Receive
and review State s response
173
Meet with Lea Ann to review MSJ
174
email
175
email to
176
Work on MSJ
Plaintiffs
and
response
Opposition
file
to motion
BRO
to
for
Stay
Consolidation
and from C Hinkle fwd opposition
effort
to consolidation
and review Motion to Set Deadline
for
response
and Bob re preparing declarations
Bill
from Duehmig re status
Utah case
in
to avoid
accompany
to
delay
by State
filed
MSJ
update
fwd to Lea Ann

Lea Ann to go over declarations
to
talk
BRO
over
s Motion
theory
case
of
to Consolidate
confer
with
Lea Ann
from K Von Ter Stegge re services

Yamin re status
Priscilla
Lea Ann
of
177
telecom
with
178
receive
review
179
email to
180
receive
181
Work on MSJ
182
Final
183
Meet with Lea Ann and
184
receive
and review County
185
receive
and review Oklahoma
186
email to
187
email
188
telecom
with
Lea Ann and S Potter
189
telecom
with
Rummell counsel
190
email
191
review
192
review
193
email
from
194
travel
to
195
Scheduling
196
email
197
Work on Amended
198
telecom
199
meet at Perkins Coie with
200
telecom
clients
of
receive
developments
re declarations
from
declarations
issues
from deanna
declarations
edit plaintiff
re status
Middleton
to
staff
finalize brief
and
file
decision
review
re issues
and send email to Middleton

of
delay
Isaac re
from Middleton
briefing
Eugene
for
hearing
from and to
201
emails with
202
receive
203
receive
204
revise
205
receive
hearing
of
new
schedule
client
frustrations
of relief
requested
and Rummell complaint
variation
strategy
with other
plaintiffs
counsel
with
Lea Ann
scheduling
order review
and changes redlined
complaint
hearing
Yamin with status update
no need
for trial
testimony
MSJ incorporating SmithKline issues
Lea Ann re supplemental
clients
clients
between
call
issues
on consolidation
consolidation
Priscilla
emails
fwd to Lea Ann
filing
re delay
caused by consolidation
email
Lea Ann re
various
SmithKline decision
with
and janine
re Motion to Consolidate
filing
Rummell Response
with
and bob
bill
finalizing
from Duehmig and Griesar re communications
and review and forward to Lea Ann
MSJ
clients
from
re
edit plaintiff
and
review
Edits
Potter
and
Declaration
edits
Isaacs
re updating
re out
of
briefing
and T
and
edits
Johnson re
to
MSJ
briefing
strategy
receive
and review emails re extension
on case
town during
and review State s request
for
oral
add
argument
possible
ways to accommodate
time
and review email from Lea Ann re amended
pleadings
MSJ Memo
and review emails between
counsel
on extension
of
time
and
filing
amended
MSJ
memo
of
time to submit
briefs
206
2 7 2014
0 10
207
2 10 2014
0 20
208
2 10 2014
0 10
209
2 10 2014
0 30
210
2 10 2014
0 10
211
2 11 2014
0 20
212
2 11 2014
0 20
213
2 11 2014
0 10
214
2 12 2014
0 20
215
2 13 2014
0 20
216
2 14 2014
0 40
217
2 16 2014
5 00
218
2 18 2014
1 20
219
2 18 2014
3 00
220
2 20 2014
0 30
221
2 20 2014
3 00
222
2 24 2014
0 40
223
2 26 2014
0 30
224
3 2 2014
0 50
225
3 3 2014
1 00
226
3 5 2014
0 24
227
3 5 2014
0 30
228
3 8 2014
0 30
229
3 10 2014
0 20
230
3 11 2014
0 50
231
3 13 2014
0 20
232
3 13 2014
0 50
233
3 13 2014
0 50
234
3 14 2014
0 10
235
3 17 2014
0 10
236
3 17 2014
0 40
237
3 18 2014
0 80
238
3 19 2014
0 10
239
3 19 2014
0 40
240
3 21 2014
0 50
241
3 20 2014
1 00
242
3 25 2014
0 20
243
3 27 2014
0 20
244
3 27 2014
0 10
245
3 28 2014
0 20
246
4 1 2014
0 10
247
4 1 2014
0 50
C
from T Johnson re possible amicus
206
email
207
receive
208
email
from K Von
209
email
from S Potter with Nevada
210
email to
211
receive
212
email to
213
email to
C Pew
214
receive
and review State s Motion
215
receive
and review Judge s Order granting extension
216
read
and review Rummell motion
Potter
Stegge
ter
seeking
extension
for
of
requesting extension
AG
request
and review Order from court granting ext

Borelli
Virigina
re
re timeline
for
Sevcik
schedule
briefing
of
in
for
extension
time
of
9th
cir
Possibility of
Dec
of
expediting
mooting our case
Potter
and Amended
Order with sched
Dates
opinion
Edit
receive
Lea Anne
219
final
220
receive
221
travel
222
receive
223
emails with
224
review
225
Meet with BRO lawyers and Lea Ann to discuss strategy
226
receive
227
telecom
with Sheila
228
telecom
with
229
email
230
emails with
231
email
S Potter re possilbity of moving up hearing

from K Von Ter stegge re Liberty Counsel calling
232
email
from C Pew re
233
review
developments
234
review
235
notice
236
telecom
237
receive
238
email
239
emails
and
240
review
Michigan
241
multiple emails
242
emails
243
email
244
email to
245
receive
246
email
247
telecom
with
and review Rummell Memorandum

to
Sevcik
possiblity of
issues
217
edits
brief in
time
argument
oral
Nevada
advance
will
218
Brief
response
file
to withdraw
on theory that State
input
time
to
telecom
with
Lea Ann re same
brief
and review State s Answer to Rummell case
to
and from Salem
for
AG Rosenblum
on case that won
announcement
defend
and review State s answer to Rummell complaint

Lea Ann re updates
Texas
court
district
on case
receive
and review County response
earlier
email to
oral
in
C Pew
with counsel
Cir
argument
need
of
confer
from C Pew re
calls
between
and Jenny Makdour
date
email to Kate
oral
email
from court
von
ter
Stegge
between
counsel
Sevcik
Lea Ann
emails
amongst
clerk
counsel
confer
re conf
with other counsel
call
about
McShane s inquiry
argument
Potter
confer
with
hearing
date
Lea Ann
argument
with counsel
on need
conferring
issues
litigation
in
with other counsel re changing
email
parties to
for oral
argument
follow
to
C Pew
from lea Ann re same
change hearing
date
review
state s response
email
from Lea Ann re stay
re coordination
re recording
proceedings
and review email with C
with
hearing
Isaacs re coordination
C Pew
J
expediting
country
for oral
counsel
arg
oral
pc
around
cases
re
to hear
and review State s Response to MSJ
from
for
Amicus lawyer re Nike
from court re assn
email to Clerk
Von Ter Stegge
email to Kate
and court re possible
from Lea Ann re 9th
from
and review
opinion
Singer
seeking
Hinkle
re
Pew about Nelson and Geiger absence recording
consent
justiciability
to
file
issues
Amicus
stays
or streaming
response
case
and controversy
in light of
recent
Virginia
decision
248
4 1 2014
0 50
249
4 1 2014
0 50
250
4 3 2014
0 50
251
4 3 2014
0 50
252
4 4 2014
0 20
253
4 10 2014
0 30
254
4 11 2014
0 40
255
4 11 2014
0 40
256
4 14 2014
1 00
257
4 14 2014
1 00
258
4 14 2014
0 50
259
4 15 2014
2 00
260
4 16 2014
0 50
261
4 16 2014
1 20
262
4 17 2014
1 30
263
4 18 2014
2 50
264
4 18 2014
0 40
265
4 21 2014
0 04
266
4 21 2014
4 50
267
4 21 2014
0 30
268
4 21 2014
2 00
269
4 21 2014
0 20
270
4 21 2014
0 40
271
4 21 2014
0 20
272
4 21 2014
2 00
273
4 21 2014
0 20
274
4 22 2014
0 20
275
4 22 2014
0 40
276
4 22 2014
6 00
277
4 23 2014
10 00
278
4 23 2014
0 20
279
4 28 2014
0 20
280
4 28 2014
0 20
281
4 29 2014
0 20
282
4 29 2014
0 50
283
4 30 2014
1 00
284
4 30 2014
0 20
285
5 2 2014
2 00
286
5 2 2014
0 50
287
5 6 2014
0 40
288
5 7 2014
1 70
289
5 9 2014
0 30
C
and review Amicus re Oregon businesses
248
receive
249
receive
250
review
251
research
252
receive
253
review
254
telecom
with
255
conf
with Kevin Diaz
256
research
257
Meet with Tom Johnson
258
telecom
259
further research
260
confer with
Lea Ann re summary judgment hearing
261
prepare
meeting with counsel to prepare
262
meet at Perkins Coie with lawyers
263
telecom
264
research
265
receive
266
multiple conversations
267
telecom
268
follow
269
email
270
research
271
email
272
review
273
receive
274
email
275
conf
276
travel
277
final
278
receive
279
review
280
ECF notice re scheduling
281
email with
282
telecom
283
receive
284
ECF notice re
285
review
286
receive
287
review
288
receive
and review BRO response
289
receive
and review State s supplemental authority referencing
and review Amicus Oregon United
Marriage
for
amicus from Jewish Federation

issue
of
possible
stay
and review court

communication
call
in
for
preparation
with
in
Lea Ann
of
and review
which court
prep
for
in
up with
with counsel
review
review
NOMs
re
NOM
and planning
counsel
all
review
outlining
press
NOM
from
pleadings
all
from Court re
to
filed
orders to recognize
marriage
reasons against
NW
Law School
Eugene
for
hearing
and Windsor
draft
for oral
terminally
discussion
point table
on issues to
ill
litigants
and send to counsel
allocate
presentation
topics
argument
cases
email to
issues
filing
of
Williams
emails to
how
stay
to respond
research
receive
and review notice from court
that hearing
request
and phone
calls
parties to intervention
and from
for
of
on 11th hour motion to intervene
all
to intervene
all
counsel
hearing
ORDER
telecom
with
clients
and Lea Ann
hearing
motion to delay
prepare
for
hearing
meet with Lea Ann and
hearing
for
denying
emails with
clients
hearing
Hinkle
review
Schuette
Case
return to Portland
and review ECF supplemental declaration

6th
Circuit
Stay decision
Tennessee
in
clients
confirming next steps
and reviewNOM
transcript
edit
case
5 14 hearing
Lea Ann re motion to intervene
with
and
for
s notice
and planning
appearance
regarding recusal
at next hearing
telecom
with
follow
Tom Johnson
up with Tom Johnson re status

re
same
research
issues
opposition
motion
confer with counsel
research
cases
and review state s opposition
memo
staying
article
Rummell counsel on intervention issues and how to respond
with
prep
NOM
and
email flow chart
on NOM s website
NOM has filed motion
re
and review ORDER re directions
call
Sisters
Pedersen
multiple emails
position
release
from Roger Harris to court
of
argument
hearing
for
and email from Roger Harris conferring
from Roger Harris
individual
NOM
from
late filing
Society
a stay
for oral
argument
people dying
relief
argument planning
advance to prepare
but evading
repitition
immediate
coordination
Pierce
for oral
preparing
granted
re hearing
arguments against
begin
in
Lea Ann
with
review
preparation
re
Borelli
in
Fidanque
hearing
for
on stay
capable
confer
re other cases
and D
appear
re Order granting Amici leave to
agreement
Borelli
with Tara
notices
and cases on recusal

to
NOM
s notice
confer
with
Lea Ann
Schuette
call
with
Tom
research
additional
filing
review
notes
from Lea Ann on standing
stayed
290
5 9 2014
0 40
291
5 12 2014
1 80
292
5 13 2014
0 10
293
5 13 2014
1 50
294
5 13 2014
0 20
295
5 13 2014
4 00
296
5 13 2014
0 20
297
5 13 2014
0 20
298
5 13 2014
2 80
299
5 14 2014
1 00
300
5 14 2014
2 00
301
5 15 2014
0 30
302
5 15 2014
0 20
303
5 16 2014
0 20
304
5 16 2014
0 20
305
5 16 2014
0 20
306
5 16 2014
0 20
307
5 17 2014
0 40
308
5 17 2014
0 20
309
5 17 2014
0 30
310
5 17 2014
0 20
311
5 17 2014
2 20
312
5 17 2014
1 00
313
5 17 2014
0 30
314
5 18 2014
2 50
315
5 19 2014
2 80
316
6 14 2014
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
5 00
285 58
NOM
and review
add
290
receive
291
review
292
email
293
receive
294
email
x4 with court
295
travel
to
296
receive
297
ECF notice re association
298
calls
299
meet with
300
attend
301
email
from and to Jenny Madkour
302
email
from Roger Harris noticing
303
email to
304
ECF notice Order court to issue opinion
305
receive
306
email
307
receive
308
telecom
309
conference
310
email
311
research
312
meet with
313
file
314
research
315
meet with
316
research
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
cases
on standing
from C Pew re
john
logistics
and from Eugene
hearing
re
NOM
for
hearing
emails
between
issues
counsel
research
standing
issues
john
doe status authentication
logitics
for
County
strategy
intervention
Borelli
re order
intent to
Appeal
Motion
and samples
re pleadings
of
from state
file
follow
for
of
Order
up
call
Stay Pending
filings
in
Appeal
response
to stay application
on May 19
NOM
and K Diaz re modification from
Lea Ann re
re
prep
post hearing
Middleton
call
Intervention
hearing
counsel
and review proposed

with
in
of
Eastman Declaration
of
and review Notice

J
Support
telecom
and review Motion to Strike
and from T
from
strike
for
in
hearing
re presentation
clerk
and review updated
clients
Reply
doe status
for
and review motion to
with counsel
briefing
make
same sex
to
same gender
edits
relief
proposed
from Harris re notice
order
of
appeal
stay issues
notice
clients
of
to discuss possible
appearance
and collaborate
clients
law
outcomes
strategy
with 9th
Cir
with lea
ann on anticipated
and county
in
anticipation
and prepare motion declaration
of ruling
on Monday
opposition
read
to motion
for
emergency
ruling
and memorandum
for
attorney fees
stay
332
333
1 22 2014
334
2 20 2014
335
5 13 2014
222 mi
102 00
110 mi
336
4 22 2014
110 mi
337
5 14 2014
222 mi
C
332
333
and from Salem
334
travel
to
335
travel
mileage
336
travel
mileage
337
mileage
travel
to courthouse
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 8 2014 3 51 47
Subject
RE
Lake
in
PM
XLS
Thanks
Perriguey
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Subject
Lake
Law
Sheila
Lake
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
www
law
skype
lagojaime
Guardian
97205
works
of
com
Civil
law
3 51 PM
Perriguey
http
OTLA
lake
LLC
Portland
T
2014
in XLS
James H
Works
mailto
July 08
Justice
works
com
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 8 2014 4 13 17
Subject
RE
Thanks
call
want
From
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Subject
Lake
Law
to
you in the
1906
SW
503
503
lake
Madison
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
www
law
skype
lagojaime
Guardian
97205
works
of
com
Civil
law
3 51 PM
Perriguey
http
OTLA
2014
LLC
Portland
T
mailto
in XLS
James H
PM
XLS
past
the
or this evening
July 08
Sheila
in
run my recommendation
morning
Perriguey
Lake
Works
Lake
Justice
works
com
AG and
the
Risk
adjuster
can
possibly
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 8 2014 4 26 50
Subject
Re Lake
Absolutely
noon
Lake James
in
have to run out now
work
those times
if
Sheila
H
PM
XLS
so
works well
this
Please try this evening or tomorrow morning from 10
am
for you
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Oregon
Portland
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
On
8 2014
Jul
Thanks
Sent
To
Lake
Potter
Lake
Justice
PM
Potter
Sheila
sheila
my recommendation
potter
past the
doj state or us
AG
and the Risk
wrote
adjuster
can
possibly call
you
in
or this evening
Perriguey
Tuesday
Subject
4 13
want to run
the morning
From
at
Civil
July
mailto lake
law works
com
08 2014 3 51 PM
Sheila
Lake in XLS
James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison Street
Oregon 97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 8 2014 4 41 25
Subject
RE
They
do
Lake
Sent
Tuesday
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
morning
Law
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
Jul 8
sheila
Thanks
of
2014
Potter
503
Sheila
Please
try
this evening
or tomorrow
www
law
works
com
Potter
Sheila
sheila
potter
past
the
doj state
AG and
the
or us
Risk
wrote
adjuster
can
possibly
or this evening
lake
2014
law
works
com
3 51 PM
Perriguey
Madison
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
well
for you
in XLS
http
OTLA
work
LLC
Portland
503
times
or us mailto
mailto
July 08
James H
Works
so this works
run my recommendation
morning
Perriguey
Lake
SW
4 13 PM
to
want
Tuesday
1906
now
those
Justice
Lake
Lake
Civil
at
you in the
Subject
if
com http
doj state
Sent
Law
works
potter
From
To
run out
noon
97205
227
skype
call
to
Street
Oregon
www
On
com
Perriguey
http
OTLA
works
LLC
Portland
T
law
4 27 PM
in XLS
have
James H
lake
2014
Lake
from 10 am
Works
1906
PM
XLS
mailto
July 08
Sheila
Re
Absolutely
Lake
in
thanks
From
To
Lake
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
keep
works
com
Justice
information
applicable
that
law
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
www
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
To
Potter
Sheila
Isaak
Misha
H
Perkins Coie
PM
RE CONFIDENTIAL AND
Sent
7 8 2014 4 54 53
Subject
Give
you a call
in the
SETTLEMENT
PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION
morning
Original Message
From
Isaak
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Kevin
Subject
Sheila
RE
will
can
Perkins
July 08
Diaz
Hi Sheila
I
Misha
aclu
or org
AND
m just checking
be out
of
be crossed
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
1 23 PM
kdiaz
CONFIDENTIAL
I
Coie
2014
the
off
office
kdiaz
PRIVILEGED
in on the
Thursday
aclu
or org
SETTLEMENT
status
and
of
Johnson
Thomas
Jr
Perkins
Coie
COMMUNICATION
this
Friday of
don
this week
mean
so I
to
pester
you about
m just checking
to
it
but
see if
it
my list
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sheila
Sent
Monday
June
To
Isaak
Subject
Misha
Re
Awesome
mailto
30
2014
Perkins
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
5 01 PM
Coie
CONFIDENTIAL
AND
PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT
COMMUNICATION
thanks
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jun 30
misaak
You
2014
of
at
4 28 PM
perkinscoie
got
it
ll
Justice
Isaak
com mailto
request
Misha
misaak
two more
Perkins
perkinscoie
weeks
to
Coie
com
wrote
be safe
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Potter
Sheila
Sent
Monday
June
To
Isaak
Subject
Boy
if
the
same
Misha
RE
Coie
mailto
30
2014
Perkins
CONFIDENTIAL
you could
take

Isaak
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
or org
Subject
Misha
June
Sheila
RE
CONFIDENTIAL
AND
PRIVILEGED
to
extension
Lake
done
Perkins
Coie
2014
doj state
or us
and
I
SETTLEMENT
to
that
let
ll
COMMUNICATION
s say a week
give
us enough
from Friday
time to
have
and
we
ll
ask for
something
bet
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
4 11 PM
aclu
Jr
Perkins
or org mailto
CONFIDENTIAL
AND
potter
Coie
and
30
Thomas
kdiaz
sheila
4 13 PM
a short
for our response
From
LLP
2086
AND
PRIVILEGED
Coie
kdiaz
PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT
Kevin
aclu
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org
SETTLEMENT
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
Hi Sheila
look
at
realize you were
this
settlement
Our fee
of
fees
out
petition
by then
of
is
the
due
office
last week
tomorrow
or should we
plan
and
any chance
to
file
may not
you ll
for another
have
have
had
a chance
a response
extension
of
to
on
time
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Isaak
Sent
Wednesday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
or org
Misha
Sheila
25
aclu
Jr
4 10 PM
potter
doj state
Perkins
or org mailto
CONFIDENTIAL
AND
Coie
2014
sheila
Thomas
CONFIDENTIAL
LLP
Perkins
June
kdiaz
Subject
Coie
2086
AND
Coie
kdiaz
PRIVILEGED
PRIVILEGED
or us mailto
Kevin
aclu
sheila
kdiaz
potter
aclu
doj state
or org mailto
or us
kdiaz
aclu
or org
SETTLEMENT
SETTLEMENT
Diaz
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
Sheila
I
believe
Tom
attorneys
totals
Hours
Coie
301
See
Total
this
Attached
relating
to
NOM
are timesheets
s motion to
for the
Rummell
intervene
The
attorneys
6
below
Middleton
Hours
72 4
Rate
350
Total
25 340
Kevin
Diaz
Hours
74
Rate
400
Total
29 600
Saxe
Hours
40
Rate
325
Total
13 000
Amanda
Goad
Hours
24 1
Rate
300
Total
Grand
about
on matters
96 485
Jennifer
Rose
you a voicemail
time spent
are as follows
Perkins
Rate
just left
subtracting
7 230
total
Regarding
Johnson
655
Perkins
this case
drafting
171
we
Coie
received
portions
at
425
Gabby Richards
of
s time
the
this accounting
intervention
However
this case
to
would
have
to
recover
since
conclusion
spent
this email
on fees
and
is
and
and
its
therefore
expressly preserve
280
did the
other
brief
Kristina
does
not
defeating
resulted
litigating
for this time if
Finally
at
and
vast
majority of
associates
Perkins
Holm at
Coie
340
the
on various
s rates
Nathan
firm s work
projects
such
for this case
Christensen
on
as
are
Tom
295
and
at
230
As mentioned
we
Tom
from several
summary judgment
Misha Isaak
at
although
assistance
we
the
include
NOM
in an overall cost
merits against
file
a fee
attachments
subject
our right to
time spent
s intervention
to
the
protect
NOM
petition
are being
on tasks
was
relating
a necessary
savings
when
to
part
compared
as an intervenor
we
NOM
of
s
litigating
with the
will
likely
time
seek
in court
sent
settlement
information
in the
privilege
and
hope
Also
of
coming to
we
communications
do not
subject
a settlement
waive
to
the
and
attorney
client
disclose
protected
information
and
work
product
information
privileges
If
the
or communications
we
attached
reserve
billing
the
statements
right to
claw
inadvertently
back
such
or communications
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
503
97209
727
346
misaak
NOTICE
This
and
perkinscoie
communication
received
message
4128
2086
2086
E MAIL
have
it
in error
under
or otherwise
attachments
have
NOTICE
This
have
and
the
law
If
received
contents
communication
it
in error
any attachments
communication
received
message
the
com
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
copying
or disclosing
that
privileged
the
information
and
immediately
contents
Thank
If
you
delete
the
you
is
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
This
and
information
you have
keep
received
message
without
perkinscoie
privileged
please advise
applicable
that
reply e mail
NOTICE
may contain
misaak
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
com mailto
any attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
LLP
Floor
Portland
FAX
Coie
Street
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
privileged
please advise
without
copying
may contain
the
copying
or other
sender
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
privileged
please advise
without
the
the
contents
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
and
the
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
the
you
information
immediately
Thank
If
delete
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
Sent
7 8 2014 4 59 51
Coie
PM
RE CONFIDENTIAL AND
Subject
SETTLEMENT
PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION
Perfect
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
Perkins
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Tuesday
To
Isaak
Subject
Give
Sheila
Misha
RE
mailto
July 08
2014
Perkins
in the
potter
doj state
or us
Coie
CONFIDENTIAL
you a call
sheila
4 55 PM
AND
PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT
COMMUNICATION
morning
Original Message
From
Isaak
Sent
Tuesday
To
Potter
Cc
Kevin
Subject
Sheila
RE
will
can
Perkins
July 08
Diaz
Hi Sheila
I
Misha
aclu
or org
AND
m just checking
be out
of
be crossed
mailto
misaak
perkinscoie
com
1 23 PM
kdiaz
CONFIDENTIAL
I
Coie
2014
the
off
office
kdiaz
PRIVILEGED
in on the
Thursday
aclu
status
and
or org
SETTLEMENT
of
Johnson
Thomas
this
Friday of
don
this week
mean
so I
my list
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sheila
Sent
Monday
June
To
Isaak
Subject
Misha
Re
Awesome
H
30
mailto
2014
Perkins
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
5 01 PM
Coie
CONFIDENTIAL
AND
PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT
COMMUNICATION
thanks
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Potter
Counsel
Trial Division
Oregon
On
Department
Jun 30
misaak
You
got
2014
of
at
perkinscoie
it
ll
Justice
4 28 PM
Isaak
com mailto
request
misaak
two more
Misha
Perkins
perkinscoie
weeks
to
Coie
com
wrote
be safe
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Potter
Sheila
Monday
June
Isaak
Subject
Misha
RE
LLP
2086
Sent
To
Coie
H
30
mailto
2014
Perkins
CONFIDENTIAL
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
4 13 PM
Coie
AND
PRIVILEGED
SETTLEMENT
Jr
Perkins
Coie
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
to
pester
you about
m just checking
to
it
see if
but
it
Boy
if
the
same
you could
take
a short
for our response

From
Isaak
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
or org
Misha
June
Sheila
Subject
RE
done
Perkins
Coie
2014
aclu
Jr
AND
Hi Sheila
realize you were
settlement
PRIVILEGED
Our fee
of
let
ll
s say a week
give
us enough
from Friday
time to
have
and
we
ll
ask for
something
bet
mailto
Perkins
or org mailto
CONFIDENTIAL
this
to
that
misaak
perkinscoie
com
AND
at
and
4 11 PM
CONFIDENTIAL
look
extension
Lake
and
30
Thomas
kdiaz
to
fees
SETTLEMENT
out
is
of
Kevin
aclu
PRIVILEGED
petition
by then
Coie
kdiaz
Diaz
kdiaz
aclu
or org mailto
kdiaz
aclu
or org
SETTLEMENT
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
the
due
office
last week
tomorrow
or should we
plan
and
any chance
to
file
may not
you ll
for another
have
have
had
a chance
a response
extension
of
to
on
time
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
From
Isaak
Sent
Wednesday
To
Potter
Cc
Johnson
or org
Misha
Sheila
Thomas
25
aclu
AND
Coie
2014
sheila
Jr
4 10 PM
potter
AND
doj state
Perkins
or org mailto
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
LLP
Perkins
June
kdiaz
Subject
Coie
2086
kdiaz
PRIVILEGED
PRIVILEGED
Coie
or us mailto
Kevin
aclu
sheila
kdiaz
potter
aclu
doj state
or org mailto
or us
kdiaz
aclu
or org
SETTLEMENT
SETTLEMENT
Diaz
COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
Sheila
I
believe
Tom
attorneys
totals
Coie
301
Rate
See
Total
this
Attached
relating
to
NOM
are timesheets
s motion to
for the
intervene
Rummell
The
attorneys
6
below
Middleton
Hours
72 4
Rate
350
Total
25 340
Kevin
Diaz
Hours
74
Rate
400
Total
29 600
Saxe
Hours
40
Rate
325
Total
13 000
Amanda
Goad
Hours
24 1
Rate
300
Total
Grand
about
on matters
96 485
Jennifer
Rose
you a voicemail
time spent
are as follows
Perkins
Hours
just left
subtracting
7 230
total
Regarding
this case
drafting
171
Perkins
we
655
Coie
received
portions
of
s time
although
assistance
the
Tom
and
from several
summary judgment
brief
did the
other
vast
majority of
associates
Perkins
Coie
on various
s rates
the
firm s work
projects
for this case
such
are
on
as
Tom
Johnson
at
425
Gabby Richards
Misha Isaak
at
As mentioned
this accounting
intervention
However
this case
to
we
would
to
recover
spent
Finally
this email
on fees
and
and
and
attorney
client
disclose
protected
and
not
resulted
we
its
therefore
expressly preserve
information
Kristina
defeating
litigating
for this time if
is
280
does
since
conclusion
have
at
Holm at
340
Nathan
Christensen
at
295
and
230
the
include
NOM
in an overall cost
merits against
file
a fee
attachments
subject
to
are being
the
on tasks
work
privileges
If
relating
a necessary
savings
when
to
NOM
part
of
compared
as an intervenor
sent
information
the
or communications
was
we
s
litigating
with the
will
time
likely
seek
in court
settlement
protect
product
NOM
petition
our right to
information
time spent
s intervention
we
in the
privilege
and
hope
of
Also
coming to
we
do not
communications
attached
reserve
billing
the
a settlement
waive
subject
to
statements
right to
claw
and
the
inadvertently
back
such
or communications
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
Couch
PHONE
OR
503
503
97209
727
346
misaak
NOTICE
This
and
perkinscoie
communication
received
message
4128
2086
2086
E MAIL
have
it
in error
under
or otherwise
attachments
have
NOTICE
This
have
and
NOTICE
This
have
and
law
If
received
contents
it
in error
any attachments
communication
it
in error
any attachments
communication
received
message
the
communication
received
message
the
com
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
copying
or disclosing
that
privileged
the
information
and
immediately
contents
Thank
If
you
delete
the
you
is
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
and
or otherwise
or it
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
the
message
and
by
any
from your system
This
and
information
you have
keep
received
message
without
perkinscoie
privileged
please advise
applicable
that
reply e mail
NOTICE
may contain
misaak
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
com mailto
any attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
LLP
Floor
Portland
FAX
Coie
Street
it
in error
any attachments
may contain
privileged
please advise
without
copying
may contain
copying
may contain
the
copying
or other
sender
the
or other
confidential
the
and
contents
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
and
contents
by reply email
or disclosing
sender
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
privileged
please advise
without
the
or other
sender
privileged
please advise
without
the
the
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
information
the
If
you
delete
the
you
information
immediately
Thank
you
you
immediately
Thank
If
delete
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 10 2014 11 19 57
Subject
Quick update
Ellen
and
are meeting
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
1515
SW
AM
this afternoon
Potter
Trial Counsel
of
Fifth Avenue
Portland
Phone
Sheila
971
OR
Justice
Suite
410
97201
673
1880
FAX
971
673
5000
will
let
you know
as soon
as I
know
more
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 10 2014 11 20 25
Subject
Re
AM
Quick update

Lake James
Sheila
Give her
my love
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Oregon
Portland
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
On
10 2014
11 19
Jul
Ellen
and
Sheila
at
SW
Phone
Potter
Sheila
sheila
will let
potter
wrote
doj state or us
you know as soon as
know more
Potter
Trial
Counsel
Oregon Department
Portland
AM
are meeting this afternoon
Deputy Chief
1515
Justice
Avenue
Fifth
OR
of Justice
Suite 410
97201
971 673 1880
FAX 971 673 5000
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 10 2014 3 43 35
Subject
Costs
You
stipulate
http
www
that
state will
law works com
Sheila
pay
all
H
PM
the costs that
we
claimed
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 10 2014 3 46 37
Subject
RE
What
are the
total
From
Lake
Sent
Thursday
To
Potter
Subject
You
Law
Works
SW
503
503
law
2014
3 44 PM
will
pay all
finding them
works
in the
motion or memo
com
state
the
costs
that
LLC
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
lake
m not
Perriguey
Madison
Portland
T
that
James H
1906
mailto
July 10
Sheila
sought
Costs
stipulate
Lake
costs
Perriguey
PM
Costs
law
Guardian
works
of
503
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
com http
Civil
Justice
www
law
works
com
we
claimed
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 10 2014 4 12 36
Subject
Re
Sheila
H
PM
Costs
Hi Sheila
alleged a right to costs
memo
In the
I identify
958
in
costs on page 3
At the bottom of the Exhibit 3
I listed
mileage
It
looks like I did not include the federal mileage rate or the
400
fee
filing
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
On
10 2014
3 46
PM
Jul
What
Lake
Sent
Perriguey
Thursday
Potter
Subject
You
Potter
are the total costs sought
From
To
at
July
Sheila
sheila
m not nding
law works
mailto lake
potter
them
doj state or us
in the
motion or
wrote
memo
com
10 2014 3 44 PM
Sheila
Costs
stipulate
Lake James
that
state will
pay
all
the costs that
we
claimed
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
Street
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 10 2014 4 14 29
Subject
RE
Not quibbling
967
over
50 now
is
From
Lake
Sent
Thursday
To
them
from the
mailto
July 10
Sheila
Re
you get
total
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
whether
that
PM
Costs
lake
2014
wondering
mileage and
law
works
com
on page
how
filing
much
you re asking
for
see the
fee
4 13 PM
Costs
Hi Sheila
I
alleged
In
the
a right to
memo
At the
bottom
mileage rate
Lake
Law
of
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
Jul 10
What
are the
Thursday
Potter
Law
Works
SW
503
503
Sheila
like
did not
include
the
federal
www
law
works
com
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
sought
mailto
lake
m not
law
2014
3 44 PM
will
pay all
sheila
potter
doj state
finding them
works
in the
or us
wrote
motion or memo
com
state
the
costs
that
we
claimed
Perriguey
LLC
Street
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
97205
x apple
data
detectors
0 0
Oregon
227
1928
tel
334
2340
tel
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
works
of
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
20227
1928
503
20334
2340
keep
law
works
com
Justice
information
applicable
that
www
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
503
com http
Civil
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
3 46 PM
costs
that
http
OTLA
looks
Justice
July 10
Madison
Portland
T
It
Costs
James H
1906
at
Perriguey
stipulate
Lake
com http
doj state
total
Lake
Subject
fee
Civil
2014
potter
Sent
You
works
of
From
To
400
filing
listed mileage
97205
227
skype
sheila
Street
Oregon
www
On
in costs
Perriguey
http
OTLA
958
Exhibit 3
LLC
Portland
T
the
or the
James H
Works
costs
identify
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 10 2014 4 31 33
Subject
Re
Both Lea Ann and
Yes
Sheila
PM
Costs
though
we
She added costs into her declaration
Lake James
had broken
that
down
for total fees and costs requested
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
On
10 2014
4 14
PM
Jul
Not
From
Lake
Sent
To
Potter
quibbling over whether
that total
is
at
Perriguey
Potter
July
Sheila
Re
sheila
you get them
from the mileage and ling
Thursday
Subject
Sheila
mailto lake
law works
potter
doj state or us
wondering
how much
wrote
you
re asking for
see
the
967 50
now
fee
com
10 2014 4 13 PM
Costs
Hi Sheila
alleged a right to costs
memo
In the
I identify
958
in
At the bottom of the Exhibit 3
costs on page 3
I listed
mileage
It
looks like I did not include the federal mileage rate or the
fee
filing
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
On
10 2014
3 46
PM
Jul
What
at
Potter
are the total costs sought
Sheila
sheila
m not nding
potter
them
doj state or us
in the
motion or
wrote
memo
400
From
Lake
Sent
To
Perriguey
Thursday
Potter
Subject
You
July
law works
mailto lake
com
10 2014 3 44 PM
Sheila
Costs
stipulate
Lake James
that
state will
pay
all
the costs that
we
claimed
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
skype
OTLA
www
Street
97205
law works com
lagojaime
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 10 2014 5 25 08
Subject
Costs Clarification
Sheila
H
PM
Hi Sheila
The
967 50 includes the
400 00
fee
Filing
194 50
Lea Ann
194 50
Lake Mileage
373 00
967 50
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
that
is
in
Lea Ann
declaration
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 10 2014 6 57 27
Subject
RE
Thanks
Your
373
intervention
we
will
pay those
From
Lake
Sent
Thursday
To
is
and
Potter
Subject
by my calculation
would
not
include
the
three
trip
trips
to
to
Salem
Eugene
scheduling
for Ellen
costs
Perriguey
mailto
July 10
Sheila
Costs
PM
Costs Clarification
lake
2014
law
works
com
5 25 PM
Clarification
Hi Sheila
The
967
50 includes
Filing fee
Lea
Ann
Lake
50 that
is
in Lea
Ann
00
373
00
50
Lake
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Madison
Portland
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
194
50
Mileage
967
Law
400
194
the
law
Guardian
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
Justice
www
law
works
com
s declaration
conference
s press conference
MSJ
So yes
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 10 2014 9 25 20
Subject
Re
Correct
On
Jul
Your
6 57
at
373
is
PM
Lake
To
Perriguey
Thursday
Potter
Subject
July
Potter
Sheila
my calculation
by
and would not include the
Sent
PM
Costs Clarification
law works com
10 2014
Thanks
From
Thank you
www
http
Sheila
trip to
potter
three trips to
Salem
law works
mailto lake
sheila
doj state or us
Eugene
wrote
scheduling
for Ellen s press conference
conference
So yes
we
MSJ
intervention
will pay those costs
com
10 2014 5 25 PM
Sheila
Costs Clarification
Hi Sheila
The
967 50 includes the
that
is
in
Lea Ann
declaration
400 00
fee
Filing
194 50
Lea Ann
194 50
Lake Mileage
373 00
967 50
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 10 2014 10 44 36
Subject
Fees
Sheila
H
PM
Sheila
When
and
if
to articulate
you
I
In recognition
articulate
would
like
any
rationale
of the Oregon tax payers
Thank you
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
for our agreement to reduce
you to include as part of
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
who
my
willingness
my
fees
in
addi
tion to any bases you
to agree to the the reduced amount
did not vote for Measure 36
may want
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 11 2014 9 57 05
Subject
RE
Will
do
thanks
From
Lake
Sent
Thursday
To
AM
Fees
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
mailto
July 10
Sheila
lake
2014
law
works
com
10 45 PM
Fees
Sheila
When
and
if
you articulate
any bases you may want

agree
In
the
the
recognition
Thank
Lake
Law
to
James H
of
the
would
like
SW
Oregon
tax payers who
did not
503
503
Perriguey
Madison
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
law
skype
lagojaime
Guardian
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
you to
to
reduce
include
my fees
as part
amount
LLC
Portland
OTLA
reduced
any rationale for our agreement

articulate
you
Works
1906
to
Justice
www
law
works
com
vote
for Measure
36
of
in addition
to
my willingness
to
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
7 11 2014
Subject
attorney
VON TER STEGGE

H
10 35 23 AM
Sheila
s fees
Hi Sheila
Is
anything
resolved with either group
of Plaintiffs
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite
500
503 988 3377
multco us
Multnomah
Portland
fax
OR
County Attorney
97214
on
this
Thanks
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
7 11 2014
Subject
Re
Just reached
the
agreed
attorney
agreement
upon
H
VON TER STEGGE
10 58 02 AM
Sheila
s fees
with opposing
amounts
and
ll
counsel
put
that
on both
cases
yesterday
in our submission to
the
afternoon
court
Sheila
On
Jul 11
katevts
2014
at
10 35 AM
multco us mailto
Katharine
katevts
VON TER
multco us
STEGGE
wrote
Hi Sheila
Is anything
Kate
von
Ter
resolved
of
Plaintiffs
on this
Thanks
Stegge
Senior
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
katevts
with either group
3138
mailto
County
Suite
503
988
katevts
Attorney
500
3377
co
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Risk
will
pay
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
7 11 2014
Subject
Re
s fees
attorney
Can you
Thank you
Fantastic
VON TER STEGGE

H
11 02 14 AM
Sheila
please throw us on your response
Kate von Ter Stegge
SE Hawthorne
501
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
OR
Portland
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Fri
Jul
11
Just reached
amounts
2014
at
10 58
AM
Potter Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
agreement with opposing counsel on both cases yesterday afternoon
and
wrote
Risk
will
pay the agreed upon
put that in our submission to the court
ll
Sheila
On
Jul
11 2014
at
10 35
AM
VON TER STEGGE
Katharine
katevts
multco us
mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
Hi Sheila
Is
resolved with either group
anything
of Plaintiffs
on
this
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior
501
SE
Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
Suite 500
co multnomah
CONFIDENTIALITY
may
OR
97214
If
e mail in error
please advise
or us
multco us
http
multco us
NOTICE
applicable law
the message
Portland
County Attorney
503 988 3377 fax
mailto katevts
This e mail
Multnomah
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
H
VON TER STEGGE
Potter Sheila
To
Katharine
Sent
7 11 2014 11 16 42
Subject
RE
Of course
happy
AM
attorney s fees
to
From
mailto katevts
Friday
July 11
2014 11 02 AM
Sent
To
Potter Sheila H
Subject
Re
attorney s fees
Fantastic
Kate
von
Senior
Thank
Ter
you
Can you please throw us on your response
Stegge
Assistant County
501
SE Hawthorne
503
988 3138
katevts
multco us
Suite
Attorney
500
503 988 3377
mailto katevts
Multnomah
Portland
County Attorney
OR 97214
fax
co multnomah or us multco us http
multco us
On Fri
Jul 11
2014 at 10 58 AM
Potter Sheila H
Just reached agreement with opposing
counsel on both cases yesterday
upon amounts
and I ll put that in our submission to the court
wrote
afternoon
Risk
will
pay the agreed
Sheila
On Jul 11
2014
at 10 35 AM
mailto katev
Hi Sheila
ts multco us mailto katevts
multco us
wrote
Is
anything resolved with
either
group
of Plaintiffs
on
this
Thanks
Kate von Ter Stegge
Senior
Assistant
County Attorney
501 SE Hawthorne
503
Suite
988 3138 tel
500
Multnomah
Portland
503 988 3138
katevts
mailto katevts
multco us
tp
CONFIDENTIALITY
County Attorney
OR 97214
503 988 3377 tel
503
988 3377
co multnomah or us mailto katevts
fax
co multnomah or us
multco us http
multco us
ht
NOTICE

confidential
please advise me immedi ately by reply e mail
and
immediately
delete
the message
and any attachments
from your system
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 14 2014 4 54 46
Subject
5 minutes
Sheila
at
H
PM
AG office
in
Portland
Hi Sheila
Can
get five minutes of face time with you on Tuesday afternoon
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
after
4 or on Wedne
sday 11 15 12 30 or after 4
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 14 2014 5 04 31
Subject
RE
will
be in Salem
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
To
Potter
Subject
5 minutes
both
Perriguey
Sheila
days
2014
PM
AG office
in
Portland
sorry
mailto
July 14
at
lake
law
works
com
4 55 PM
5 minutes at
AG office
in Portland
Hi Sheila
Can
get
five
minutes of
11 15 12 30 or after
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Perriguey
Madison
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
time with you on Tuesday
LLC
Portland
T
face
law
Guardian
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
Justice
www
law
works
com
afternoon
after
4 or on Wednesday
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 14 2014 5 05 07
Subject
Re 5
Thursday morning coffee
Lake James
Sheila
minutes at
PM
AG office
have something
in
Portland
have to give you
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
On
14 2014
5 04
PM
Jul
be
will
From
Lake
Sent
To
in
Potter
Potter
Salem both days
Perriguey
Monday
Subject
at
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
sorry
mailto lake
law works
com
14 2014 4 55 PM
July
Sheila
5 minutes
at
AG
office
in Portland
Hi Sheila
Can
Lake James
after
4 or on Wedne
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 14 2014 5 06 14
Subject
RE
Sure
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
To
m free
between
Perriguey
Potter
Sheila
Re
Thursday
morning
Law
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
1928
334
2340
law
Guardian
Jul 14
will
works
of
works
com
have
in Portland
something
have
to
give
you
at
Lake
Sent
Monday
Potter
5 04 PM
both
Perriguey
law
Potter
works
Sheila
or us mailto
days
com
2014
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
sorry
mailto
July 14
Sheila
www
Justice
doj state
be in Salem
Subject
law
AG office
com http
Civil
2014
potter
From
To
lake
5 05 PM
97205
227
lagojaime
11 30
Street
skype
sheila
Portland
coffee
Oregon
www
On
in
Perriguey
http
OTLA
2014
PM
AG office
LLC
Portland
T
mailto
5 minutes at
James H
Works
at
9 30 and
July 14
Subject
Lake
5 minutes
lake
law
works
com
4 55 PM
5 minutes at
AG office
in Portland
Hi Sheila
Can
get
five
minutes of
11 15 12 30 or after
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
after
4 or on Wednesday
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
afternoon
Perriguey
http
OTLA
LLC
Portland
T
face
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
keep
works
com
Justice
information
applicable
that
law
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
www
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 14 2014 5 07 49
Subject
Re 5
Super
can meet you
Lake James
at
Sheila
minutes at
your
office
PM
AG office
in
Portland
or cafe at 9 30 or before on Wednesday
morning
Just let
me know
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Oregon
Portland
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
On
14 2014
5 06
PM
Jul
Sure
From
Lake
Sent
To
m free
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
com
5 minutes
Lake James
law works
mailto lake
AG
Re
Sheila
14 2014 5 05 PM
July
at
Subject
Potter
between 9 30 and 11 30
Perriguey
Monday
Potter
at
office
in Portland
have something
have to give you
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
On
14 2014
5 04
PM
Jul
will
From
Sent
To
be
in
Lake
Potter
Potter
Salem both days
Perriguey
Monday
Subject
at
July
Sheila
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
sorry
mailto lake
law works
com
14 2014 4 55 PM
5 minutes
at
AG
office
in Portland
Hi Sheila
Can
after
4 or on Wedne
Lake James
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 14 2014 5 08 27
Subject
Correction
Sheila
H
PM
THURSDAY
5 minutes
at
AG
office
in
Portland
CORRECTION
Super
can meet you
Lake James
at
your
office
or cafe at 9 30 or before on
THURSDAY
morning
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
On
14 2014
5 06
PM
Jul
Sure
From
Lake
Sent
To
m free
Sheila
sheila
potter
doj state or us
wrote
com
5 minutes
Lake James
law works
mailto lake
AG
Re
Sheila
14 2014 5 05 PM
July
at
Subject
Potter
between 9 30 and 11 30
Perriguey
Monday
Potter
at
office
in Portland
have something
have to give you
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
On
14 2014
5 04
PM
Jul
will
From
Sent
To
be
in
Lake
Potter
Potter
Salem both days
Perriguey
Monday
Subject
at
July
Sheila
Sheila
mailto lake
law works
14 2014 4 55 PM
at
AG
office
sheila
sorry
5 minutes
in Portland
com
potter
doj state or us
wrote
Just let
me know
Hi Sheila
Can
Lake James
after
4 or on Wedne
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Madison
Street
Portland
Oregon
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
97205
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 14 2014 6 36 11
Subject
RE
Let
s meet
at
From
Lake
Sent
Monday
To
Starbucks
Perriguey
Potter
Subject
the
Correction
mailto
July 14
Sheila
at
2014
PM
THURSDAY
Clay and
lake
law
5 minutes
Park
works
at
at
AG office
9 30
On
in
Portland
Thursday
com
5 08 PM
Correction
THURSDAY
5 minutes at
AG office
in Portland
CORRECTION
Super
can
meet
you at
your office
or cafe
at
9 30 or before
on THURSDAY
me know
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
Madison
Portland
T
503
503
Perriguey
LLC
Street
Oregon
1928
334
2340
http
www
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
On
law
Guardian
Jul 14
sheila
works
of
at
between
Lake
Monday
Perriguey
Potter
Sheila
Re
Thursday
morning
SW
503
503
Madison
227
1928
334
2340
lagojaime
law
Guardian
Jul 14
will
Lake
Sent
Monday
Potter
Hi Sheila
potter
doj state
or us
wrote
or us
wrote
11 30
lake
law
works
com
5 05 PM
AG office
I
have
in Portland
something
have
to
give
you
97205
of
com http
Civil
at
5 04 PM
both
Perriguey
July 14
Sheila
www
law
works
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
days
mailto
2014
sheila
potter
sorry
lake
law
works
4 55 PM
5 minutes at
com
Justice
doj state
be in Salem
Subject
sheila
works
2014
potter
From
To
Sheila
Street
skype
sheila
2014
coffee
Oregon
www
On
com
Perriguey
http
OTLA
works
LLC
Portland
T
Potter
mailto
5 minutes at
James H
Works
law
or us mailto
9 30 and
July 14
Subject
1906
5 06 PM
m free
Sent
www
Justice
doj state
From
Law
Civil
2014
Lake
com http
potter
Sure
To
97205
227
AG office
in Portland
com
doj state
morning
Just let
Can
get
five
minutes of
11 15 12 30 or after
Lake
Law
James H
Works
1906
SW
503
503
Madison
after
4 or on Wednesday
Street
Oregon
227
1928
334
2340
www
skype
lagojaime
law
Guardian
97205
works
of
com http
Civil
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
afternoon
Perriguey
http
OTLA
LLC
Portland
T
face
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
keep
works
com
Justice
information
applicable
that
law
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
www
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Johnson
Sent
7 15 2014 9 05 20
Subject
Filing
Thomas
Coie
R Jr
AM
Perkins Coie
today
Sheila
was planning on
filing
a motion today
which would notify Judge McShane
fees and ask that he suspend the deadline

were going to
file
for
filing
a fee
the same motion today for both cases
petition
Does
we
mean
that
that
we
have
reached
a settlement
work outthe fine print
while
should
hold off
on
filing
Lea Ann
in principle
said
on
she thought
something
Thanks
Misha
Misha Isaak
1120
Perkins Coie LLP
Couch
Street
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
OR
97209 4128
503 727 2086
FAX 503 346 2086

E MAIL
misaak
NOTICE
advise
perkinscoie
This communication
the sender
contents
com
may
contain
privileged or other
confidential
Thank you
information
If
and any
you have received
attachments without
it
in error
please
the
you
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
CC
Johnson
Sent
7 15 2014 9 57
Subject
Re
Nope
On
thought
Jul 15
misaak
Filing
you were
2014
at
perkinscoie
Coie
R Jr
26 AM
Thomas
Perkins Coie
today
filing
9 10 AM
it
Isaak
com mailto
Misha
misaak
Perkins
perkinscoie
Coie
com
wrote
Sheila
I
was
planning
a settlement
petition
same
on filing
a motion today
in principle
while
we
motion today
work
out
for both
on fees
the
and
fine
cases
which
ask that
print
Does
Lea
that
would
notify
he suspend
Ann
mean
Judge
the
McShane
deadline
said she thought
should hold
off
that
we
for filing
you were
on filing
have
reached
a fee
going
to
file
the
something
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
1120
N W
Tenth
Couch
Coie
LLP
Street
Floor
Portland
OR 97209 4128
PHONE
503 727 2086
FAX
503
346
2086
E MAIL
misaak
NOTICE
This
have
communication
received
message
and
perkinscoie
it
in error
any attachments
com mailto
may contain
misaak
privileged
please advise
without
perkinscoie
the
copying
com
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
or disclosing
the
and
contents
information
immediately
Thank
you
If
you
delete
the
From
Isaak
Misha
Perkins
To
Potter
Sheila
CC
Johnson
Sent
7 15 2014 10 24 15
Subject
RE
OK
so did I
Lea
Ann
Thomas
Filing
Coie
Perkins Coie
Jr
AM
today
must have
misunderstood
will
file
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
PHONE
503
727
Coie
LLP
2086
Original Message
From
Potter
Sent
Tuesday
To
Isaak
Cc
Johnson
Subject
Nope
On
Sheila
Misha
Jul 15
2014
sheila
potter
doj state
or us
9 57 AM
Coie
Jr
Perkins
Coie
Filing today
thought
misaak
mailto
Perkins
Thomas
Re
July 15
you were
2014
at
perkinscoie
filing
9 10 AM
it
Isaak
com mailto
Misha
misaak
Perkins
perkinscoie
Coie
com
wrote
Sheila
I
was
planning
a settlement
petition
same
on filing
a motion today
in principle
while
we
work
motion today
on fees
out
for both
the
and
fine
cases
which
print
Does
would
ask that
Lea
that
notify
he suspend
Ann
mean
Judge
the
McShane
deadline
said she thought
should hold
off
that
we
have
for filing
you were
going
on filing
reached
a fee
to
file
the
something
Thanks
Misha
Perkins
Misha Isaak
1120 N W
Couch
Tenth Floor
Portland
PHONE
FAX
OR
503
503
97209
727
346
misaak
NOTICE
This
and
4128
2086
perkinscoie
communication
received
message
it
in error
any attachments
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
under
or otherwise
that
com mailto
may contain
without
This
perkinscoie
privileged
please advise
information
applicable
you have
law
communication
If
received
reply e mail
keep the contents
from your system
attachments
NOTICE
misaak
the
com
or other
sender
confidential
by reply email
copying
or disclosing
that
privileged
the
information
and
immediately
contents
Thank
If
you
delete
the
you
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
LLP
2086
E MAIL
have
Coie
Street
is
you are not
the
confidential
addressee
confidential
may contain
and
privileged
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
or other
or it
delete
confidential
context
me immediately
the
have received it
in error
please advise the sender by reply email and
message and any attachments
exempt from
from the
message
and
information
immediately
Thank you
by
any
If
you
delete
the
From
Potter
To
Sent
7 15 2014 11 13 33
Subject
Short extension
The
last couple
days have
thing
Sorry
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
158
503
947
Thought
taken
was
Potter
12th
Salem
Sheila
Trial Counsel
Street
OR
97301
4700
NE
of
Justice
AM
on Geiger fee response
on a life
going
to
have
of
their own
time yesterday
can
and
we
have
today
until
Friday to
and
nope
file
our
From
Potter
To
Sent
7 15 2014 11 13 33
Subject
Short extension
The
last couple
days have
thing
Sorry
Sheila
Deputy
Chief
Oregon
Department
158
503
947
Thought
taken
was
Potter
12th
Salem
Sheila
Trial Counsel
Street
OR
97301
4700
NE
of
Justice
AM
on a life
going
to
have
of
their own
time yesterday
can
and
we
have
today
until
Friday to
and
nope
file
our
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
7 15 2014 11 21 29
Subject
Re
Sheila
Short extension
AM
Yes
http
On
The
www
Jul
law works com
15 2014
at
Sheila
was
Salem
Sheila
life
sheila
of their
going to have time yesterday
Trial
potter
own
doj state or us
can
we
and today and
have
wrote
until Friday tole
our thing
Sorry
nope
Counsel
Oregon Department
158 12
Potter
Potter
Deputy Chief
th
AM
days have taken on a
last couple
Thought
11 13
NE
Street
OR
of Justice
97301
503 947 4700
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Sent
7 15 2014 2 08 17
Subject
Draft
Attachments
JUSTICE
Sheila
PM
5568706
v1 Geiger 1834 Response
One meeting
went
hierarchy above
Sheila
away
me
but
which
here
to
gave
Petition
me some
s where
for
Attorney
drafting
m at
Fees
time
Any problem
and Notice
of
Proposed
might still
with any the
Agreement
run into
on Fees docx
delays
representations
in the
here
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
H POTTER
SHEILA
Deputy
993485
Chief Trial Counsel
ANNA M JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
MARY WILLIAMS
911241
Department
SW
1515
OR
Portland
Telephone
Fax
971
Email
of Justice
Fifth
Ave
Suite 410
97201
971
673 1880
673 5000
Sheila Potter
anna joyce
doj state or us
doj state or us
msn com
mary h williams

Jenny M Madkour
OSB No 98298
County Attorney
501 S
Portland
Hawthorne
mail
Blvd
032300
Suite 500
Oregon 97214 3587
Telephone
Facsimile
OSB No
von Ter Stegge
Katharine
503
503
988 3138
988 3377
jenny
m madkour
katevts
multco us
multco us
Of Attorneys for Defendant Randy Walruff
IN
THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT
COURT

Case
No
6 13 cv 01834
WILLIAM GRIESAR
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
ATTORNEY FEES AND NOTICE OF
PROPOSED AGREEMENT ON FEES
Plaintiffs
Page 1
STATE AND COUNTY DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT ON FEES
SP3 cjw 5568706
v1
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
MC
Lead Case
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his official
ROSENBLUM
in
her official
WOODWARD
State Registrar
in
Multnomah
capacity as
JENNIFER
her official
capacity as
Center for Health
WALRUFF
capacity
ELLEN
of Oregon
and
in his official
Statistics
RANDY
capacity as
County Assessor
Defendants

EDUCATION FUND
Case
No
6 13 cv 02256
TC
Plaintiffs
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his offic
of Oregon
ROSENBLUM
in
her official
WOODWARD
State Registrar
in
Multnomah
capacity
capacity as
JENNIFER
her official
capacity as
Center for Health
WALDRUFF
ial
ELLEN
and
in his official
Statistics
RANDY
capacity as
County Assessor
Defendants
Counsel for the defendants Governor
Woodward
and Randy Walruff
by the Geiger
reflects
amount of attorney fees
the
individual
Page 2
work and
line
items
Jennifer
have conferred with each other and with
petition
plaintiffs
In the course of those conferrals
negotiated
Ellen Rosenblum
Lake Perriguey and Lea Ann Easton regarding the fee
counsel for the Geiger plaintiffs
submitted
John Kitzhaber
skill
that
that
the attorneys reached
is
lower than the
went into the Geiger
counsel negotiated
with
Mr
total
plaintiffs
Perriguey
an agreement on the payment of a
sought in the petition but
case
still
Rather than negotiating
to reduce his rate to
over
350 per hour

SP3 cjw 5568706
v1
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
which
is
closer to the
reflect
he was doing so
Measure 36
Mr
The
parties
Easton reduced her
The
74 970
25
and would
285 6 hours
containing
also agreed to an
Perriguey
percent
five
who
flat
like
the record to
did not vote for
a corrected
the time entries
have agreed on a
volunteering
effectively
billings
defendants recognize that
would have supported a
400 hour
by a
substantial
Ms
Easton
and
rate
for the same
that
Ms
throughout
at
fee payment of
total
supplied by
350 hour
75 000 to
less
the
Mr
again
petition
to pay her request in
Teton
full
in
this
is
that
Mr
The
entries
6 300
and have agreed to the requested
from Multnomah
style
NO CHARGE
before
Ms
Easton
and have agreed
voluntarily
is
minimal Her requested rate
entries reflect
no work
that
lead attorneys to attend
is
eminently
the defendants would
as well
full
have no dispute over the costs sought
two
has agreed to
defendants would not ask
defendants have agreed to pay her requested fees in
state
as
300 hour
51 390
and her time
defendants likewise
Perriguey
than she has already done
request for a total of
hearings that were reasonable for the
The
Easton chose to ask for only
consistent with her litigation
appreciated
the amount of
reasonable for her experience
The
long experience and the nature of the case
25 percent discount
to reduce her fees even more dramatically
The
margin before submitting the fee
Easton also voluntarily marked a number of
even submitting the
Ms
Ms
a level of collegiality and professionalism
reflecting
mileage to Eugene for
as well as the
initial
filing
fee
967 50
defendants agreed at the start of the case that they would not seek contribution
County
in
US C
any payment of fees under 28
challenged laws were state laws

Page 3
Mr
on
of the unusual nature of the
subject to this Court s approval
Ms
dispute
reflective
of the Oregon taxpayers
recognition
along with the spreadsheet
of 25 percent
Perriguey
petition
in
Court but
counsel took
This results in a total fees of
Perriguey
discount
this
of his total fees by twenty
reduction
that
used by
challenge that plaintiffs
constitutional
additional
OSB survey
That agreement
of course
1988
given that the
stands

SP3 cjw 5568706
v1
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
All of these agreements notwithstanding
recognize
that
the defendants and the Geiger plaintiffs
the fee petition having been filed
the petition for reasonableness
Gates v
this
Court has an independent duty to review

987 F 2d 1392
Deukmejian
1401
9th Cir 1993
defendants will therefore refrain from further action until this Court advises
that
its
review
The
is
complete
DATED
DATE
DATE
Respectfully
submitted
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
SHEILA
H POTTER
Deputy Chief
Trial
ANNA M JOYCE
Solicitor
013112
General
MARY WILLIAMS
Special Assistant
Trial
993485
Counsel
911241
Attorney General
Attorneys
potter
sheila
anna joyce
doj state or us
doj state or us
mary h williams
msn com

Jenny
Madkour
OSB No
98298
County Attorney
Katharine
von Ter Stegge
OSB No
032300
Page 4

SP3 cjw 5568706
v1
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
CC
Lea Ann Easton
Sent
7 15 2014 3 09 51
Subject
Re
Thank you
H
PM
Draft
say okay
Lake James
Sheila
Perriguey
Law Works LLC
SW
1906
Madison
Oregon
Portland
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
www
http
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
On
15 2014
2 08
PM
Jul
One
at
meeting went
me
above
away
Potter
Sheila
which gave
but here s where
m at
sheila
me some
potter
doj state or us
drafting time I
Any problem
might
wrote
still
run into
with any the representations
delays
in the hierarchy
here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
JUSTICE
v1 Geiger
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
5568706
1834
Response
to
Petition
for Attorney
Fees
and
Notice
of
Proposed
Agreemen
on Fees docx
From
Lea Ann Easton
To
Potter
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 16 2014 10 27 58
Subject
Re
It
me
looks good to
Sheila
H
AM
Draft
as well
hope your work slows down a
bit
Thank you
Lea Ann
On
Jul
One
15 2014
at
2 08
meeting went
me
above
PM
away
Potter Sheila
which gave
but here s where
m at
sheila
me some
potter
doj state or us
drafting time I
Any problem
might
still
wrote
run into
with any the representations
delays
in the hierarchy
here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise
the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
Sheila
To
Lea Ann Easton
CC
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 16 2014 11 20 09
Subject
RE
Thanks
We
ve
hired
From
Lea
Sent
Wednesday
Ann
To
Potter
Cc
Lake
Re
It
good
looks
Lea
On
mailto
July 16
LEaston
2014
job
so life
dorsayindianlaw
will
get
better
starting
in August
com
10 28 AM
Perriguey
Subject
Thank
someone for my second
Easton
Sheila
AM
Draft
Draft
to
me as well
hope
your work
slows
down
a bit
you
Ann
Jul 15
sheila
2014
potter
One meeting
at
2 08 PM
doj state
went
hierarchy above
away
me
which
but
Potter
Sheila
or us mailto
here
gave
sheila
me some
s where
H
potter
drafting
m at
doj state
time
Any problem
or us
might still
with any the
wrote
run into
delays
representations
in the
here
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
information

law
If
reply e mail
attachments
keep
the
contents
from your system
that
is
privileged
confidential
or otherwise
exempt from

confidential
and
immediately
delete
the
message
and
any
From
Lake Perriguey
Sent
7 17 2014 12 29 20
Subject
Betsy and Iya
https
http
m facebook
www
com
story php
law works com
story
PM
fbid
10152501453493808
id
571393807
From
Potter
To
Katharine
Sent
7 18 2014
H
VON TER STEGGE
12 20 59 PM
Subject
Proposed
Geiger fee response
Attachments
JUSTICE
Sheila
language
Sheila
multco us
Jenny
MADKOUR
jenny
m madkour
multco
us
5568706
v1 Geiger 1834 Response
Any changes
katevts
thoughts
to
suggestions
Petition
Lake
for
and
Attorney
Lea
Fees
Ann
and Notice
have
seen
it
of
Proposed
and
Agreement
are fine
on Fees docx
with the
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
H POTTER
SHEILA
Deputy
993485
Chief Trial Counsel
ANNA M JOYCE
013112
General
Solicitor
MARY WILLIAMS
911241
Department
SW
1515
OR
Portland
Telephone
Fax
971
Email
of Justice
Fifth
Ave
Suite 410
97201
971
673 1880
673 5000
Sheila Potter
anna joyce
doj state or us
doj state or us
msn com
mary h williams

Jenny M Madkour
OSB No 98298
County Attorney
501 S
Portland
Hawthorne
mail
Blvd
032300
Suite 500
Oregon 97214 3587
Telephone
Facsimile
OSB No
von Ter Stegge
Katharine
503
503
988 3138
988 3377
jenny
m madkour
katevts
multco us
multco us
Of Attorneys for Defendant Randy Walruff
IN
THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT
COURT

Case
No
6 13 cv 01834
WILLIAM GRIESAR
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
ATTORNEY FEES AND NOTICE OF
PROPOSED AGREEMENT ON FEES
Plaintiffs
Page 1

SP3 cjw 5568706
v1
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
MC
Lead Case
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his official
ROSENBLUM
in
her official
WOODWARD
State Registrar
in
Multnomah
capacity as
JENNIFER
her official
capacity as
Center for Health
WALRUFF
capacity
ELLEN
of Oregon
and
in his official
Statistics
RANDY
capacity as
County Assessor
Defendants

EDUCATION FUND
Case
No
6 13 cv 02256
TC
Plaintiffs
JOHN KITZHABER
as Governor
in his offic
of Oregon
ROSENBLUM
in
her official
WOODWARD
State Registrar
in
Multnomah
capacity
capacity as
JENNIFER
her official
capacity as
Center for Health
WALDRUFF
ial
ELLEN
and
in his official
Statistics
RANDY
capacity as
County Assessor
Defendants
Counsel for the defendants Governor
Woodward
and Randy Walruff
by the Geiger
reflects
amount of attorney fees
the
individual
Page 2
work and
line
items
Jennifer
have conferred with each other and with
petition
plaintiffs
In the course of those conferrals
negotiated
Ellen Rosenblum
Lake Perriguey and Lea Ann Easton regarding the fee
counsel for the Geiger plaintiffs
submitted
John Kitzhaber
skill
that
that
the attorneys reached
is
lower than the
went into the Geiger
counsel negotiated
with
Mr
total
plaintiffs
Perriguey
an agreement on the payment of a
sought in the petition but
case
still
Rather than negotiating
to reduce his rate to
over
350 per hour

SP3 cjw 5568706
v1
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
which
is
closer to the
reflect
he was doing so
Measure 36
Mr
The
parties
Easton reduced her
The
volunteering
effectively
containing
billings
Ms
throughout
and would
who
flat
like
the record to
did not vote for
a corrected
the time entries
at
fee payment of
400 hour
substantial
total
350 hour
75 000 to
supplied by
less
the
Mr
Ms
Easton
and
rate
for the same
that
again
petition
to pay her request in
Teton
full
in
this
is
Ms
The
that
Mr
The
from Multnomah
now
agreed to
style
NO CHARGE
as
voluntarily
before
Ms
Easton
and have agreed
51 390
6 300
and her time
is
minimal Her requested rate
entries reflect
no work
that
full
for hearings that were reasonable for
them
is
eminently
the defendants would
as well
have no dispute over the costs sought
and have agreed to the requested
state
has
300 hour
defendants would not ask
than she has already done
request for a total of
defendants likewise
Perriguey
entries
defendants have agreed to pay her requested fees in
lead attorneys only
The
Easton chose to ask for only
consistent with her litigation
appreciated
the amount of
reasonable for her experience
The
long experience and the nature of the case
25 percent discount
to reduce her fees even more dramatically
Ms
margin before submitting the fee
Easton also voluntarily marked a number of
even submitting the
mileage to Eugene
to attend
as well as the
by the
initial
967 50
defendants agreed at the start of the case that they would not seek contribution
County
in
US C
any payment of fees under 28

Page 3
25
285 6 hours
by a
a level of collegiality and professionalism
reflecting
fee
74 970
also agreed to an
Perriguey
percent
five
have agreed on a
defendants recognize that
would have supported a
filing
Mr
on
of the unusual nature of the
subject to this Court s approval
Ms
dispute
reflective
of the Oregon taxpayers
recognition
along with the spreadsheet
of 25 percent
Perriguey
petition
in
Court but
counsel took
This would results in a total of
Perriguey
discount
this
of his total fees by twenty
reduction
that
used by
challenge that plaintiffs
constitutional
additional
OSB survey
That agreement
of course
1988
given that the
stands

SP3 cjw 5568706
v1
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
All of these agreements notwithstanding
recognize
that
the defendants and the Geiger plaintiffs
the fee petition having been filed
the petition for reasonableness
this
Court has an independent duty to review

987 F 2d 1392
Gates v Deukmejian
1401
defendants will therefore refrain from further action until this Court advises
The
9th Cir 1993
that
its
review
is
complete
DATED
DATE
DATE
Respectfully
submitted
ELLEN F ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
SHEILA
H POTTER
Deputy Chief
Trial
ANNA M JOYCE
Solicitor
013112
General
MARY WILLIAMS
Special Assistant
Trial
993485
Counsel
911241
Attorney General
Attorneys
potter
sheila
anna joyce
doj state or us
doj state or us
mary h williams
msn com

Jenny
Madkour
OSB No
98298
County Attorney
Katharine
von Ter Stegge
OSB No
032300
Page 4

SP3 cjw 5568706
v1
Department
1515
SW
Fifth
Portland
971
673 1880
of
Justice
Ave
Suite
OR
97201
Fax
971
410
673 5000
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
7 18 2014
Subject
Re
VON TER STEGGE

H Jenny MADKOUR
12 29 11 PM
Sheila
Proposed
Geiger fee response
Sheila
Can you throw
This looks good
in
there something about Plaintiff
counsel agreeing that the state will pay the whole
Thanks
bill
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Fri
Any
Suite
Jul
18 2014
changes
at
12 20
thoughts
PM
Potter Sheila
suggestions
sheila
potter
doj state or us
Lake and Lea Ann have seen
it
wrote
and are
ne
with the language
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Potter
To
Sent
7 18 2014
Subject
RE
Sure
It
seek
now
reads
contribution
that
the
The
laws
not
seek
the
Geiger plaintiffs
From
Katharine
Friday
Potter
Subject
defendants
were
VON TER
H
County
agreed
at
the
in any payment
state
laws
County
The
Plaintiffs
state
start of
of
fees
counsel
defendants
the
case
under
likewise
intend
to
that
they
28 U S C
agreed
pay the
would
1988
that
fees
not
given
they
would
awarded
to
by this Court
July 18
Sheila
Re
Geiger fee response
state
from Multnomah
Sent
To
Proposed
from Multnomah
challenged
fees
H
VON TER STEGGE
12 37 37 PM
Sheila
Katharine
STEGGE
2014
mailto
katevts
multco us
12 29 PM
Jenny MADKOUR
Proposed Geiger fee
response
Sheila
This
looks
state
Kate
will
von
good
Can
pay the
Ter
Assistant
501
SE
Hawthorne
503
988
On
Fri
sheila
3138
County
something
about
Plaintiff
s counsel
agreeing
that
the
Thanks
Jul 18
potter
Attorney
Suite
503
mailto
Any changes
in there
bill
Stegge
Senior
katevts
you throw
whole
988
500
Portland
katevts
co
2014
12 20 PM
at
thoughts
OR
County
Attorney
97214
fax
3377
doj state
Multnomah

Potter
or us mailto
suggestions
Sheila
sheila
Lake
and
that
is
multco us
potter
Lea
Ann
doj state
have
seen
or us
it
wrote
and
are fine
with the
language
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
NOTICE
e mail may contain
disclosure
under
or otherwise
reply e mail
attachments
information
applicable
that
keep
you have
the
law
If
received
contents
from your system
privileged
you are not
the
confidential
and
confidential
addressee
or it
or otherwise
appears
please advise
immediately
delete
the
exempt from
from the
context
me immediately
message
and
by
any
From
Katharine
To
Potter
Sent
7 18 2014
Subject
Re
Yes
VON TER STEGGE

H
12 38 10 PM
Sheila
Proposed
Geiger fee response
Thank you
great
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
Suite
500
503 988 3377
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
fax
multco us
Fri
Sure
Jul
It
18 2014
now
at
12 37
The
reads
PM
Potter Sheila
state defendants
sheila
potter
doj state or us
agreed at the start of the case that they would
contribution from Multnomah County in any payment of fees under 28

Multnomah County The
Plaintis
state defendants
wrote
USC
1988
counsel likewise agreed that they would

intend to pay the fees awarded
not seek
given that the
not
seek fees from
to the Geiger plaintis
by
this
Court
From
To

18 2014 12 29 PM
H Jenny MADKOUR
Katharine
Sent
Friday
Potter
Subject
katevts
multco
us
July
Sheila
Re
Proposed Geiger fee response
Sheila
This looks good
Can you throw
in
there something about Plaintiff
counsel agreeing that the state will pay the whole
Thanks
bill
Kate von Ter Stegge
501
SE Hawthorne
503 988 3138
katevts
On
500
Multnomah
Portland
OR
County Attorney
97214
503 988 3377 fax
multco us
Fri
Any
Suite
Jul
18 2014
changes
at
12 20
thoughts
PM
Potter Sheila
suggestions
sheila
potter
doj state or us
Lake and Lea Ann have seen
it
wrote
and are
ne
with the language
Sheila
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e mail
may
applicable law
If
e mail in error
please advise
the message
NOTICE
is
me
privileged
or
it
confidential
appears
or otherwise

the contents conf
that
idential
you have received
this
From
Lake Perriguey
To
Potter
Sent
7 21 2014 11 39 08
Subject
Perriguey
Sheila
AM
Hi Sheila
My
is
attached
You can send
Lake James
the portion for Sage to
Perriguey
Law Works LLC

1906
SW
Portland
Madison
Oregon
Street
97205
503
227 1928
503
334 2340
http
www
law works com
skype
lagojaime
OTLA
Guardian of
Civil
Justice
Law Works LLC
if
you want and
will
pay her out

14-35427 Public Records Request Production

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14-35427 Public Records Request Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From

Lake James Perriguey

a call with you about a potential

Law Works LLC

law works com

PLEASE DON T PRINT

the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to

you are not the

law works com and delete

Law Works LLC

law works com

PLEASE DON T PRINT

the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to

you are not the

law works com and delete

From Lake James Perriguey

challenge to Or Const defining marriage

a call with you about a potential

Law Works LLC

law works com

PLEASE DON T PRINT

the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to

you are not the

law works com and delete

Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum

Law Works LLC

law works com

PLEASE DON T PRINT

the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to

you are not the

law works com and delete

Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum

time with AG Rosenblum

Lake Perriguey request

e mail may contain

you are not

e mail with a copy

this e mail and

Perriguey request for Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum

Thank you so much

Lake James Perriguey

LAW WORKS LLC

503 803 5184

have your request on

can regarding availa

Both the AG and Deputy are out of the

Thank you and have a good day

503 378 6002

Request for Meeting with Ellen Rosenblum

Law Works LLC

law works com

PLEASE DON T PRINT

you are not the

please notify the sender immediately by return e mail with a copy to

law works com and

contain information that

copies and attachments

you are not the addressee

ex empt from disclosure under

from the context or otherwise

immediately by reply e mail keep

and any attachments from your system

the contents conf

you have received